Why do Christians WANT to read the Bible?

Debate Room
61

Oh that would take a while, and maybe some professional help. My guess is we’re dealing with a precocious teenager.

Yes I’d tried to explain this to him, but he can’t understand the difference between morality and a blind adherence to doctrine or dogma. hence my question to @Drich asking him “why does he think rape is wrong” went unanswered, despite him responding several times, he doesn’t understand the question, as I suspected of course. Sadly he doesn’t know he doesn’t understand it as well, or what that implies.

1 Like
62

This atheist teaches nothing. Such a claim only shows your ignorance, about Atheism and the old testament.

There in one and only one rule for one to be an atheist IE a disbelief in god(s). There are no such things as atheist teachings

The 613 commandments (mitzvah) are all contained in the Torah .aka the pentateuch, the firsts five books of the Old Testament . IE Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy . They are known collectively as the mitzvot and all are part of The Law claimed to have been revealed to Moses.

Read and be informed:

Mitzvot

There are 613 mitzvot, which are Jewish rules or commandments. They cover many issues, including instructions about food, punishments and how God should be worshipped.

Jews agreed to follow these rules when they were given to Moses as part of the covenant. Following these laws is a core part of Jewish identity for many Jews.

The mitzvot can be read as a continuous list in the Mishneh Torah, written by Moses Maimonides . Maimonides was a Jewish philosopher who contributed to Jewish understanding and interpretation of the Torah.

This link lists them all. To be fair, many are no longer kept: Eg people are no longer stoned for adultery, fathers no longer kill recalcitrant children or sell their daughters into slavery. Each of those things are included in the Law of Moses.
That such are no longer practiced gives the lie to the claim that god’s laws are for all time.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Jesus is reported as saying he had not come to change the law. Nor did he. The changes which removed pretty much all ritual commandments was made by Saul of Tarsus following his hallucinations.

Matthew 15:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

All was not fulfilled because Jesus failed to keep his promise to return:

Matthew 16:28.Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Pretty sure he made the same promise elsewhere in the gospels, but I forget where.

His followers expected Jesus to return within their lifetime. When he did not, the religion we call christianity became just another failed millenarian movement.

2 Likes
63

That is not a requirement or obligation.

If that was so, you would owe me for a broken irony meter.

4 Likes
64

65

To which truths do you refer?

I’m suspect you believe you are privy to exclusive ,absolute truths. So far, I’ve never been able to believe any person who has made such a claim. That is due to an absence of empirical evidence.

I make no claims to truth telling in any objective way. All I’ll say is that I do not usually deliberately say or write anything I believe to be untrue. However, all bets are off if I’m in extremis.

1 Like
66

It wasn’t invalid. Maybe you just didn’t like the question.

67

Again sport you need to frame this with in the epicurean paradox. With the flood God destroyed all living evil. Evil needing sentience to propagate. killing non self aware animals is a societal sin as other societies today right now have no such prohibition, and to further escalate and call this act evil, is a stretch.

Again then, since you seem to have ignored it, what has that to do with you claiming the biblical deity dislikes rape? When in fact the bible shows that deity encouraging it?

are you to infantile to understand this concept or do you really think you have me on my heels? God in the beginning had no prohibition on rape. NOW HE DOES… how hard is that to understand? If he has a prohibition on rape then it means he does not like rape… there i made the connection for you.

I’ll point out that it’s still one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever read, as humans are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and if you keep moving the goal posts your deity will soon become human. In which case he’ll cease to be a deity, oddly enough as Epicurus suggests in that quote, which you have utterly failed to understand.

  1. never said humans are omniscient nor omnipotent,
  2. I point out God’s mercy is never once been biblically described is all merciful. again that is an attribute of your straw God.
    3)you have yet to point out a valid reason my epercian arguement failed. your want and desire or your belief that because it stood for years is moot.

again the paradox fails period, as it is not describing the god of the bible. the man was describing his pantheon of gods, none of which are comparable to the God of the bible, anyone who studies scripture.

Because as i pointed out God’s mercy is not limitless. so your little paradox fails if on no other point as it was not written or intended to describe the God of the bible. like it or not paradox broken.

By redefining the Christian deity to remove one of it’s core characteristics, I bet theologians studying theodicy are furious they didn’t think of it after thousands of years. However there is still omniscience and omnipotence for you to tackle yet, simply accepting the deity depicted in the bible is a sadistic evil narcissist has not remotely solved theodicy or defeated Epicurus. The arrogant bombast is as hilarious as ever though, given you can’t even spell Epicurean. Even more so as you clearly haven’t even understood what he meant, I’d re-read it if I were you.
here’s the thing shelly, God never claims the title omni max god. the fact that you think i am premoving God’s central qualities proves my statment you have created a straw man version of god. and you expect me to defend your pos.

So if you were 1/2 as smart as you tell everyone you would ask a question to try and lock me down to a biblical description of God. one that allows God to be God.

If you had i would point to his own description when speaking to moses and again as defined in the book of revelation. in that God is the great I am, the alpha and omega the beginning and end to all things. this means he is the first and last word on everything that his will is the first authority and his actions complete. So how does this apply to a godly description? it is the truest form of an omni max God without the trappings and stupid paradoxes that come with it. IE can an omni max God create a rock so big he can not lift it? where as a alpha and omega God could if he wanted to and couldnt if he did not. So how can an all loving God sent people to hell or allow innocent people to suffer? an omni max God has the foresight to see suffering bring wisdom patients and understanding and can make provision to allow just as much as needed, and still claim to love. he can also hate and sent assholes to hell. an alpha and omega is the version of God that trumps your bullshite straw god every time.

the rest of you post looks like a big name calling session. you bull doze past the points i make with little more than a nut-huh, or rather 'this is how christians always believed… ’ again i point to the fact you do not understand the difference between mass eye witnesses and ad populum fallacy, as quoting how numerous christians believe for numerous years is faulty reasoning.

again if the church and their broken understanding of God did not fail you, you would not be here. IE what you consider to be the authority is broken. or again you and your friends would not be here. you would be miso-theists.

clean up the personal garbage and repost. otherwise know i will do it for you and you are wasting time as i will no longer make an effort to address your person bs.

68

not what i said builder of strawmen/lies… I said asked are their no rules concerning misquoting other members? to quote someone means to represent what another said word for word. I am saying some one misrepresented something i said… are their no rules for that is my question? are you atheist allowed to lie and say a christian said xyz, when infact he said 123. just because it makes your argument easier? Do you understand now?

69

It is interesting that this comment, since it was addressed to the mods, drips of intimidation and bullying, something I took effort to protect our theist friend from.

I was tempted to call his bluff, in getting him to accept that the mods (after careful consultation) would ban the most dishonest and the one spouting the most lies.

Fuck, there goes my irony meter again. It is costing me a fortune replacing them.

190×145 10 KB

1 Like
70

because you are one of 15 people, and honestly i have no idea what your question is. and if it is not even closly related to the subject in any way, i will ignore it as i do not need another tangent to try and keep up with. I get it… you are a member here and you write something out you see a ton of activity, but nothing addressed to you. this is one of the reason i am selective editing Sheldon’s text walls. as people like yourself fall through the cracks. his text walls are a play on my own vanity, as it is so easy to get into a one ups manship context in these forums. I will try to simply answer relevant questions and stay out of petty pee pee measuring contests.

71

Dude. Just shut up. You’re a narcissist who is so set in your ways that you can’t be debated with. You’re a brick wall. When things don’t add up to your satisfaction then it’s fuck everyone else. You resort to evasive and reflective tactics to avoid answering questions that would otherwise hurt your arguments. The more people argue with you. The more volatile you get. At this point you’re preaching your beliefs at a group of people who don’t believe your god exists.

72

See the quote box? See the arrow in the corner? ANYONE can tap on it and see the full content.

BTW - after a smoke (I’m on vacation so I haven’t been able to post as often as I like) I think you are trying to weave social evolution and humanist progress with your “two rule” for god … dismissing what “god” set as rules for humans.

Personally, I dismiss the whole book as a “word of god” thingy. Pretty much what you do with a good portion of it. Kinda like god. I disbelieve all. Whereas, you dismiss all BUT your personal idea of “what god is”.

2 Likes
73

that said out of ignorance or a lie. all of you have an opinion on god but retreat to the we believe nothing when pressed. every single one of you.

what does mitzvots have to do with anything? I spent 4 years in hebrew studies at the mt zion ministries… I understand what mitzvots are.

mat 15 explained this is a video i made that shows how mat 15 is used to separate christian law from the jews.
I’ve written this out several times here already but it seems you cant be bother to have read those efforts, so if you wish to continue watch the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPyWjv4mug&t=75s

74

nice to know. then i can claim you said… and out right lie. I honestly do not know why i would expect anything less from you ‘good people.’ or am i mistaken in understand what you just said?

75

@Drich

There is little point in responding to that dishonest vapid disjointed rant, what an odious little man you are. Go away and educate yourself, and grow up.

1 Like
76

I told you he would move the goalposts.

77

oh my glob, are you guys too stupid/dense to understand what a quote it? when i say you said:

To which truths do you refer?
I’m suspect you believe you are privy to exclusive ,absolute truths. for example you may think i am a homosexual based on my sexual preference, when in fact i am a transgender and my same sex attraction has been nullified because i identify as the opposite sex. that is why my screen name is boomer.

My question asks is it wrong for me to say/lie this was a direct quote from you? that you actually told me those thing. is it wrong to lie about another member said about you?

78

That’s what Atheism is, dumb ass. We don’t believe in the existence of deities and neither do we believe in your god. It’s not our fault you can’t comprehend what Atheism is. You’re just mouthing off because the views of Atheists doesn’t align with your own. You refuse to accept anything but your own beliefs. You can’t stand it. You’re a narcist religious bigot who is trying to domineer his religious views on an Atheist community without having never provided real, undeniable, and physical evidence that your deity ever existed. All you’ve used is your words and frankly you’re not as well versed in the Bible as you think you are. You obviously couldn’t remember scripture from the book of Revelations.

.

79

No shit Sherlock.

I with-hold belief because there is NO empirical, demonstrable EVIDENCE for “god”. It is a claim. The claim has to be backed.

Like I said before, (thanks to your analogy)… one witness claiming to have seen a crime (btw which would be a life/death decision against the person being accused) ALSO needs to demonstrate a “crime scene”. Hmmm :thinking: my ex would be in a shitload of trouble if all that was required to condemn a man was “testimony” of a witness (nothing else).

Hey :wave: you ever think that the “writings” of sayings and conversations in the Bible aren’t first-hand accounts (mostly heresay which wouldn’t be accepted as low level civil claims evidence on Judge Judy)???

80

don’t see a question here… or did you think you were telling me something i didn’t know… here something you may not have known i was the UCF liaison minister to the university of central fl for about 3 years. debating on that level requires knowledge on all other books that were not canonized. as many of the kids/students i saw were little more than parrots for their professors. i’m replying because you are on about some question/you not receiving attention from me.