StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:08 am**

No he's not forcing you, he just saying do this or spend eternity in damnation. Love me or die.

like any good tyrannical dictator

If your going to make such ridiculous comparisons about the circumstances of the "choice" he is giving. Plz remember that god created existence. Therefore he made the rules and is the one who put you on the freeway to begin with.

Posted: **Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:38 am**

Thriller wrote:No he's not forcing you, he just saying do this or spend eternity in damnation. Love me or die.

Still have the choice.

If your going to make such ridiculous comparisons about the circumstances of the "choice" he is giving. Plz remember that god created existence. Therefore he made the rules and is the one who put you on the freeway to begin with.

He created existence, yes. But did he create the "freeway"? I think not.

In a nutshell: God created the heavens and the earth. He created man with the freedom to have choice. He created the garden of Eden. He told Adam and Eve the rules [not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil]. Adman and Eve disobeyed God. And thus choosing death not life.

So using the freeway example. Take a family living next to the freeway, there is a wall protecting them. The father says to the children not to pass the wall and venture onto the freeway. Children disobey, pass wall venture on the freeway. *bang* hit by car....

Ignoring the driver....Who's fault is it? Was it the parents? No, they set the boundaries clearly. Was it the Children ? Yes, they disobeyed. And made the decision and suffered the consequences..

So, clearly it is a choice.

Posted: **Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:12 am**

Mister Sandman wrote:I dont care what people claim, I only care about what the bible says. However, If I must....

I'm just asking you whether or not you believe that, according to the Bible, one goes to hell if they do not accept the Bible's solution. Can you stop going in circles? Thanks. Then, if you do believe this, it'd be nice if YOU provided the scripture to back it up instead of asking others to do it for you.

Furthermore, IF this is the case, it does not compare to the analogy that you gave. According to your analogy, the Biblical concept of sin is a necessity outside God's control, of which humanity must be warned to be wary if they do not want it to lead them to hell, which is also outside of God's control. There are a few theological problems with that, as I'm certain you can see. Now, all I'm saying is that your analogy doesn't seem to be consistent with your beliefs. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, so consider that before you react in a predictably illogical manner.

You see, because we're testing for validity, we must make arguments that are consistent with the premises made, before we even look at the truthfulness of those premises. The latter step is a test for soundness.

[spoiler]In an interview, the Pythons stated that they couldn't agree on what religion is, but they could agree on what it isn't. They made fun of what it isn't, according to them. If you agree that their mockery of what religion isn't doesn't reflect your perspective of what religion is, you should actually not find it offensive. If you do find it offensive, it may reflect what you think religion is, which they, in your mind, have portrayed accurately and then proceeded to mock it.

About choice: giving two alternatives isn't choice. It compares to me asking you if you want to be stretched on a rack or crucified. Neither is desirable and you are not free to choose an option that is. Do you really have the choice? In terms of the heaven/hell dichotomy of choice, it can be argued that neither is desirable either. In one scenario, I am promised eternal suffering. In the other scenario, I must surrender my spirit to a being whose promise to take care of it properly I cannot trust.

A good analogy would be a 14 year old who attempts to force his parents to let him drive their car on the highway. He threatens to blow up the car with homemade bombs, if they do not.[/spoiler]

Posted: **Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:37 am**

Keep in mind that if you accept the doctrine of christianity, you accept the entire doctrine of christianity, not just the part where god says that sin's reward is death, hellfire and pools of sulphur.

You also accept that god is the sovereign creator of life, the universe, and everything. Sovereign creators do not need nor have any obligation to bother with such frail trivialities as 'freedom' of a few elements in their creation. It's like vases demanding from the potter the right to make a choice as to where they will end up.

You're all just insecure. See, you as a human being, need a goal and some level of control over that. Giving that up requires faith. If you have it, you'll be less burdened (even though you might not feel that right away) with that 'problem'.

See.. the whole issue is that christianity says there is a problem (i.e. 'original sin') and that it can fix that (i.e. 'redemption' through faith in Christ). To accept the notion of the christian god with all its intricacies means to accept gods sovereignty, means that you have to give up that level of control that you perceive. It isn't 'handing over the reins', it's more like deciding not to whine about every little thing anymore, and knowing (or rather, 'trusting') that your fate is in good hands. If you cannot accept the notion of a god who can direct fate, you have no business exploring christianity and might be better off listening to the Buddha.

Yes. And now I lost my point. I hope I made it before losing it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:54 am**

erm, excuse me people, i wanted to discuss certain issues i have with many parts of bible...NOT...i repeat...NOT, the whole book or peoples interpretations of it!

can we PLEASE get back on topic?!

NOW...there are MANY problems with the KJ version of the bible...the main 1 being that King James outlawed all other versions and translations of the bible and only sanctioned his 1 under penalty of death for anyone found with a version other than his.
another problem with the KJ version is that there are to many mistranslations, weather deliberate or not is not the point but the fact that these mistranslations exist.
another fact thats omitted from translated bibles is that the Hebrews were not monotheistic (meaning they believed in and were created by 1 true creator "God") they were in fact henotheistic (belief in or worship of one god without denying the existence of others), which means they believed in more than 1 "God" but chose 1 God over the others, the text (or commandment if you prefer) "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" would support that. another text from the bible which adds even more weight to the fact that there is more than 1 "God" is this text from Psalms 82:

"Thus saith the Lord: Ye are gods and children of the Most High. "

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High. "

and what about this text from the same source as above:

God astandeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

and yet another problem is this, nowhere in the bible does it say that "God" created man, go and read your bibles again, what is says is "let us go down and make man in OUR image after OUR likeness...

now, what does that imply to you? please apply logic when you answer and NOT what your personal beliefs would tell you it means.
if you apply logic that should tell you 2 things, 1 that "God" is not the only "God", and 2 that man was already here and he was "changed" to look more like him/them.

and what about genesis 3.22. it says: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

i've underlined the obvious!

what i think the bible is telling us is that man was formed in "Gods" image from the indigenous creatures of earth and put into a protected area (Eden) to keep his experiment away from those same creatures "that were already here", and that the "Creatures outside that protection were brutes compared to adam, eve and their offspring who had been "changed" and had gained "Knowledge"...is that not a fair assessment when you read the above (and what i've already written concerning cain and abel) in context and apply logic?

can we please stay on topic and go point by point because to try and either validate or discuss the ENTIRE book and our interpretations would take more than a few lifetimes and ultimately we will end up arguing again and that i don't want to see, so less of the bickering and more logic please.

thank you.

Posted: **Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:45 am**

[KMA]Avenger wrote:erm, excuse me people, i wanted to discuss certain issues i have with many parts of bible...NOT...i repeat...NOT, the whole book or peoples interpretations of it!

can we PLEASE get back on topic?!

You mean, the validity of the Christian Bible?

NOW...there are MANY problems with the KJ version of the bible...the main 1 being that King James outlawed all other versions and translations of the bible and only sanctioned his 1 under penalty of death for anyone found with a version other than his. Cool, didn't know that. Sources?
another problem with the KJ version is that there are to many mistranslations, weather deliberate or not is not the point but the fact that these mistranslations exist. Be less vague.
another fact thats omitted from translated bibles is that the Hebrews were not monotheistic (meaning they believed in and were created by 1 true creator "God") they were in fact henotheistic (belief in or worship of one god without denying the existence of others), which means they believed in more than 1 "God" but chose 1 God over the others, the text (or commandment if you prefer) After reading the evidence below, I have concluded that it is weak evidence. It is weak evidence because the text is vague and your interpretation is semantically possible, but so is the traditional interpretation. About the Hebrews, they changed their beliefs regularly, getting a slap on wrist for it once in a while.* "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" would support that. another text from the bible which adds even more weight to the fact that there is more than 1 "God" is this text from Psalms 82:

"Thus saith the Lord: Ye are gods and children of the Most High. "

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High. "

In Orthodox Christianity, this is interpreted as meaning that because God's energy is required to maintain our existence, we are essentially part of God, yet we lack divinity because we are a part and not the whole.

and what about this text from the same source as above:

God astandeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
The Archangels are mighty, yet they are not divine. Also, "gods" can theoretically refer to anything that is worshipped as if it were divine. It is synonymous with idol.

and yet another problem is this, nowhere in the bible does it say that "God" created man, go and read your bibles again, what is says is "let us go down and make man in OUR image after OUR likeness...
Our - reference to the trinity or simple royal fluff - two other interpretations that do not interfere with one's understanding of the Bible..

now, what does that imply to you? please apply logic when you answer and NOT what your personal beliefs would tell you it means.
if you apply logic that should tell you 2 things, 1 that "God" is not the only "God", and 2 that man was already here and he was "changed" to look more like him/them. No, if I apply logic, I find that the evidence that you presented is not enough to come to any conclusion.

and what about genesis 3.22. it says: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

i've underlined the obvious!

and going back to Cain being banished for the murder of Abel and cain saying the ones outside would kill him and god placing a mark on his forehead so that would not happen...there's no way that so many were banished from eden because they were ALL criminals, if they were then adam and eve had some SERIOUSLY bad genes to pass on so much bad blood to an entire people. According to my understanding of the Bible, Adam and Eve only started making babies once they were banned from the garden. The Bible essentially argues that evil and sin are genetically transmitted.

can we please stay on topic and go point by point because to try and either validate or discuss the ENTIRE book and our interpretations would take more than a few lifetimes and ultimately we will end up arguing again and that i don't want to see, so less of the bickering and more logic please.
Focusing on inconclusive evidence isn't as logical as pointing out the ridiculous things that many view as proof. I'd much rather just point out that someone made an illegitimate argument than bicker and argue (about who killed whom...) Making Monty Python references makes it almost bearable to read some of the ridiculous posts in here.

thank you.

Posted: **Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:20 am**

Agapooka wrote:
[KMA]Avenger wrote:erm, excuse me people, i wanted to discuss certain issues i have with many parts of bible...NOT...i repeat...NOT, the whole book or peoples interpretations of it!

can we PLEASE get back on topic?!

You mean, the validity of the Christian Bible?

lol, ok, my bad for not changing the title but i did say from the outset that i didnt want to discuss the whole book

NOW...there are MANY problems with the KJ version of the bible...the main 1 being that King James outlawed all other versions and translations of the bible and only sanctioned his 1 under penalty of death for anyone found with a version other than his. Cool, didn't know that. Sources?

there are 5286 "mistranslations" from the hebrew book to the kings language which lead to the KJ version, the sources, the historical records

i did a general search on google and have found some sites: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html
try some searches of your own

another problem with the KJ version is that there are to many mistranslations, weather deliberate or not is not the point but the fact that these mistranslations exist. Be less vague.

all i was simply trying to say is that i dont go by ANYbody or scholars translations of the bible but try to stay close to the original text of the bible and read it for what it is instead of trying to apply a translation or interpretation, why try and interpret something so simple to understand?

to be specific, the biggest misinterpretation was the text tohu va-bohu from hebrew to the kings english. the text tohu va-bohu is only mentioned twice, both in the old testament. in genesis it says that in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void, firstly how can something be created which is formless and void? secondly tohu va-bohu was translated to mean "formless and void", if you run a search of tohu va-bohu on google it will come up with formless and void, luckily for me i have a jewish family living not to far from me whose son is a friend of my sons so i've asked the father of this boy what tohu va-bohu means and he said " it doesnt mean formless and void, it actually means, "became a waste and desolation"...the KJV leaves much to be desired because whoever interpreted the original text to the KJV wasnt to hot on hewbrew, he was great with the kings english tho
the 2nd time tohu va-bohu is mentioned is jeremiah 4: 23 where jeremiah is given a vision by god of the world that was BEFORE man was created

so, when you have the correct translation of the text you can safely say that the earth had been destroyed once (at least) already, prior to adam and eve and was already here thus making it quite possible- an earlier form of man.

another fact thats omitted from translated bibles is that the Hebrews were not monotheistic (meaning they believed in and were created by 1 true creator "God") they were in fact henotheistic (belief in or worship of one god without denying the existence of others), which means they believed in more than 1 "God" but chose 1 God over the others, the text (or commandment if you prefer) After reading the evidence below, I have concluded that it is weak evidence. It is weak evidence because the text is vague and your interpretation is semantically possible, but so is the traditional interpretation. About the Hebrews, they changed their beliefs regularly, getting a slap on wrist for it once in a while.* "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" would support that. another text from the bible which adds even more weight to the fact that there is more than 1 "God" is this text from Psalms 82:

i didnt interpret anything, i simply read what it said and made a "Logical" assumption based on words from the bible itself.

"Thus saith the Lord: Ye are gods and children of the Most High. "

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High. "

In Orthodox Christianity, this is interpreted as meaning that because God's energy is required to maintain our existence, we are essentially part of God, yet we lack divinity because we are a part and not the whole.
i think to many people try to "interpret" to much, read the text for what it is and apply your own logic

and what about this text from the same source as above:

God astandeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
The Archangels are mighty, yet they are not divine. Also, "gods" can theoretically refer to anything that is worshipped as if it were divine. It is synonymous with idol.

yes, Archangels are mighty, but the text is specific, read the underlined, it doesn't say he judgeth among the mighty Archangels which is why i underlined it God astandeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

and yet another problem is this, nowhere in the bible does it say that "God" created man, go and read your bibles again, what is says is "let us go down and make man in OUR image after OUR likeness...
Our - reference to the trinity or simple royal fluff - two other interpretations that do not interfere with one's understanding of the Bible..

if you was "God" and had just created EVERYTHING including heaven wouldn't you say, let us go down and create man in "MY" image, if you was talking to your creations?

now, what does that imply to you? please apply logic when you answer and NOT what your personal beliefs would tell you it means.
if you apply logic that should tell you 2 things, 1 that "God" is not the only "God", and 2 that man was already here and he was "changed" to look more like him/them. No, if I apply logic, I find that the evidence that you presented is not enough to come to any conclusion.

and what about genesis 3.22. it says: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

i've underlined the obvious!

and going back to Cain being banished for the murder of Abel and cain saying the ones outside would kill him and god placing a mark on his forehead so that would not happen...there's no way that so many were banished from eden because they were ALL criminals, if they were then adam and eve had some SERIOUSLY bad genes to pass on so much bad blood to an entire people. According to my understanding of the Bible, Adam and Eve only started making babies once they were banned from the garden. The Bible essentially argues that evil and sin are genetically transmitted.

true, i wasn't trying to say that they made babies before hand, but they were still in some kind of protected area because cain feared what would happen to him "outside".

can we please stay on topic and go point by point because to try and either validate or discuss the ENTIRE book and our interpretations would take more than a few lifetimes and ultimately we will end up arguing again and that i don't want to see, so less of the bickering and more logic please.
Focusing on inconclusive evidence isn't as logical as pointing out the ridiculous things that many view as proof. I'd much rather just point out that someone made an illegitimate argument than bicker and argue (about who killed whom...) Making Monty Python references makes it almost bearable to read some of the ridiculous posts in here.

lol

thank you.

Posted: **Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:35 am**

All I was saying is that your evidence is vague because the passages quoted have more than one logical interpretation. That's a concept called ambiguity. That just means that your evidence is weak. It does not mean that your conclusion is false, only that it is not properly supported by your current argument. If I ask you for your sources, it is because you made the statement.

Posted: **Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:11 am**

thats cool and dont worry, i dont take offense because at the end of the day, i'm not standing on a soap box making some loud speech without listening and you have every right to question my logic and sources :-)

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:24 am**

Thriller wrote:No he's not forcing you, he just saying do this or spend eternity in damnation.

For the people that choose to deny God they need not ponder on such things as they don't believe it.

Thriller wrote:Love me or die.

They're already dead. ;-)

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:17 am**

So bottom line is that this god fellow is one spitefull, intollerant, judgmental&vengefull sadist?

But you have a "choice". So is all gooood heh.

You know what, there may actually be something to that "he created man after hisown image" after all lol...

Thoe 5$ says its the other way around and/or that this christian god we`re pitched nowadays via bible has less than 15% in common with what Jesus was actually talking about. Conclaves and time did their morphing for practicality thing.
Me thinks uncle mao was on to something heh...

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:23 am**

n3M351s wrote:
Thriller wrote:No he's not forcing you, he just saying do this or spend eternity in damnation.
For the people that choose to deny God they need not ponder on such things as they don't believe it.

Thriller wrote:Love me or die.
They're already dead.

what you say makes no sense in addressing the subject i am talking about.

I comes off, more like a threat. When i think you were trying to go for wit.

But, i suppose through those means Christians have been gathering followers for generations. So your right on track with the precedent.

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:33 am**

Thriller wrote:
n3M351s wrote:
Thriller wrote:No he's not forcing you, he just saying do this or spend eternity in damnation.
For the people that choose to deny God they need not ponder on such things as they don't believe it.

Thriller wrote:Love me or die.
They're already dead.

what you say makes no sense in addressing the subject i am talking about.

I comes off, more like a threat. When i think you were trying to go for wit.

But, i suppose through those means Christians have been gathering followers for generations. So your right on track with the precedent.

You conceive me wrong. No wit intended.

Posted: **Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:46 am**

I find it quite profound that so many people who seem to have a firm grip on English grammar don't appear to know the difference between "God" and "god". Nouns and proper nouns people.

Posted: **Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:33 am**

The word "God" is etymologically derived from the proto-Germanic *guthan ("that which is invoked"). It may also be related to the Lombardic pagan deity "Godan".

So, I invoke Universe, that she may respond to this thread. Doing so essentially makes her "God".

StarGateWars Forums

The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

Re: The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!