• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

So I don't believe in God...

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheJackel said:
IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.
Your reading comprehension needs work.
 

Jason.Wike

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am studying for a degree in environmental science and frankly the more I learn the more convinced of God I am.

One thing for example is the sheer amount of differences in the genetics of people and the fact that we are still able to produce children together. If you don't know much about this you may assume that people are more or less genetically the same. You hear how we have 98% of our genes in common with chimpanzees... but really that should tell you how different 2% really is. When a mother and father have a child together there isn't just a 50% chance or 25% of them getting one or the other's, their genes actually do all kinds of crazy things where they mix up. Actually, there's something like 7 billion possibilities for them to mix up and become new versions of genes that neither parent actually had. This might not mean much to most people but to me it seems miraculous that you can actually get a functioning and healthy organism out of such a system on a consistent basis, and it seems miraculous that any two people actually have similar enough genetic code that its actually workable between two people from any place on earth even after thousands of years of their populations being separate and becoming what really is desperately dissimilar.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am studying for a degree in environmental science and frankly the more I learn the more convinced of God I am.
You have a long way to go. But I wish you luck in your studies.


One thing for example is the sheer amount of differences in the genetics of people and the fact that we are still able to produce children together.
This first statement tells me that you have a long way to go in your studies.

You hear how we have 98% of our genes in common with chimpanzees... but really that should tell you how different 2% really is
This is not an argument because this right here tells me you haven't probably passed your first class in genetics. Lets evaluate the following:

00101
00100

You sate "Are shown to have 98% of our genes in common with Chimps and only 2% difference"..And you seemingly had done so while not comprehending that such changes are not important in regards to the percentage of change but rather the change in function of the differences in the genome.. Hence, the above set of digits can be considered binary code to which the two codes can server two different functions. The effects greatly depend on the code difference and not directly to the percentage of difference in the code. such as even the fusion of both codes together as seen in the fusion of chromosome 2. The most visible difference is that all apes have one more pair of chromosomes than people do. The reason is simple enough to find: at some point in the past, two middle-sized ape chromosomes fused together in the ancestors of all human beings to form the large human chromosome known as chromosome #2. This fusion would make Humans and Chimps completely sterile of each other to where Macro-evolution has taken place (the point where they can no-longer breed together and become separate species). And that is not the only thing that separates us from Chimps. there is a lot of C-banding to which differentiates us from Chimps (junk DNA sequences) In the human the characteristic zones are at the middle, or centromere, of each chromosome... are slightly below the centromere on chromosomes 1, 9, and 16; and make up most of the Y chromosome. We humans are the only species of the Great Apes to have this pattern in our Genome.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chro.all.html

the Hominoid Phylogeny (ancestral tree) based on these chromosome comparisons:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.clad.html

When a mother and father have a child together there isn't just a 50% chance or 25% of them getting one or the other's, their genes actually do all kinds of crazy things where they mix up.
It must amaze you that people come out as people lol.. uhh, you don't know what you are talking about. :/
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
TheJackel said:
IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.
Your reading comprehension needs work.
Why would that need work? I stated a fact. Basically if you want to get down to very basis of the that argument. It's man assuming the will of an invisible GOD they keep locked away in the invisible stable while trying to argue he's incomprehensible unless you believe all their assumed nonsense on faith alone.. Yeah... That's like duct taping the horses mouth knowing it can't speak for itself. Worse yet, it's equivalent to putting words into it's mouth without proving it said anything at all. You then get the self-invented interpretations of what the bible says by Christians themselves who even go as far as to add words to scripture to change it's meaning to manipulate it into a context in their favor. It's disingenuous from the beginning.
 

bogdan

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
TheJackel said:
IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.
The Bible is a collection of some 80 books, written over the course of 2000 years by dozens of different people in many different genres. To paint with such a broad brush is the height of ignorance.

You should learn about the things you're debating beforehand so you don't say silly things in the future.
 

bogdan

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
TheJackel said:
orthonorm said:
TheJackel said:
IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.
Your reading comprehension needs work.
Why would that need work? I stated a fact. Basically if you want to get down to very basis of the that argument. It's man assuming the will of an invisible GOD they keep locked away in the invisible stable while trying to argue he's incomprehensible unless you believe all their assumed nonsense on faith alone.. Yeah... That's like duct taping the horses mouth knowing it can't speak for itself. Worse yet, it's equivalent to putting words into it's mouth without proving it said anything at all. You then get the self-invented interpretations of what the bible says by Christians themselves who even go as far as to add words to scripture to change it's meaning to manipulate it into a context in their favor. It's disingenuous from the beginning.
Again, you're treating us like sola scripturists. We do not interpret the Bible for ourselves in Orthodoxy, since that causes all sorts of strange beliefs to appear (nor do we adhere to sola fide), so your caricature is meaningless.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
theo philosopher said:
TheJackel said:
In Orthodox understanding, the idea of a powerful genocidal God is not a matter of advocating the literality of the story, but on its surface, for a primitive "babyish" minded people, it's a matter of keeping them in check (if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you, but on the flip side, in the good stories, if you do good things, good things will happen to you; see how bad things happened to bad people?).  The idea of the NT in theological terms is that the human race has reached a certain level of maturity in thinking, and so such ideas can be seen in a spiritual manner, like the destruction of sin and evil (consider the fact that many of the "genocides" included the destruction of all the animals and booty, which is illogical at the time for certain spoils of war).

That's self-inventing your own context. Which of course is disingenuous.. The cherry picking of what you choose to take literally and what you don't is pretty funny. Regardless, even the concept or introduction of genocide alone is enough to call it a retard of the mouth, and very poor leadership skills. And the fact that sin could even "exist" is just poor design entirely.
What occurred in the Old Testament wasn't genocide or the advocacy of genocide. If you take the stories literally - which you shouldn't because their written in an Ancient Near East war narrative, meaning they're exaggerated, and multiple Church Fathers didn't take them literally - then it's still not genocide because no one was targeted for their race, but for their behavior.

Get the book Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan, or simply look at the peer-reviewed article he published under the same title.
Jigga-what?

So everything is non-"literal" until Jesus? Exaggeration does mean the Israelites were not destroying peoples and their gods in the sake of and in obedience to God.

God had to work with what was available. Which includes genocide, fratricide, incest, murder, on and on and on to get a genealogy from Adam to the Theotokos so that the Incarnation could become possible.

What always amazed me about the OT is the fact, these things were kept in and never tossed it. It is about an honest and scandalous picture of a people struggling with God as I have ever read.

It offends modern Christian and secular mores, so both rush to toss it in their own ways.
I'm not simply writing it off or saying such events didn't happen. What I am arguing is that we shouldn't take such writings at face value because they were written in a war narrative format, meaning that there were some exaggerations put in place. That's not simply writing it off, but merely pointing out the facts as they were.

Likewise, I agree that God was working with what He was given. Hence why the original Law was incomplete. And while the Israelites did kill certain people, we should also understand that it may not be to the extend presented in the Old Testament due to the writing style.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Zeus12 said:
ozgeorge said:
Zeus, you nred to stop thinking about this as an "either-or" question. The Universe could well have started as a Big Bang, and Evolution is likely the origin of the various species, but this doesn't preclude the possibility that God is behind them.
Ok, agreed.  May be God was behind it, may be not: got a question specifically about Christianity though (probably one all of you have heard before). 

If I'm correct about this: The basis of Christianity—and the whole point of Jesus resurrecting—was to give each person the freedom to be saved from original sin.  Original sin only exists because of Adam & Eve.  So if evolution as the origin of species is true (not just human evolution but everything from protoplasm to primates), then would it mean that the Adam & Eve story/Christianity is not true?

I know that both evolution and the Adam & Eve story can both be true if God physically placed all the evidence for evolution there himself, but I'm slightly more inclined to believe that the evidence is legitimate.
Where'd Zeus go?
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
Zeus12 said:
ozgeorge said:
Zeus, you nred to stop thinking about this as an "either-or" question. The Universe could well have started as a Big Bang, and Evolution is likely the origin of the various species, but this doesn't preclude the possibility that God is behind them.
Ok, agreed.  May be God was behind it, may be not: got a question specifically about Christianity though (probably one all of you have heard before). 

If I'm correct about this: The basis of Christianity—and the whole point of Jesus resurrecting—was to give each person the freedom to be saved from original sin.  Original sin only exists because of Adam & Eve.  So if evolution as the origin of species is true (not just human evolution but everything from protoplasm to primates), then would it mean that the Adam & Eve story/Christianity is not true?

I know that both evolution and the Adam & Eve story can both be true if God physically placed all the evidence for evolution there himself, but I'm slightly more inclined to believe that the evidence is legitimate.
Where'd Zeus go?
We got into his Hera too much.  Zing!
 

Jason.Wike

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheJackel said:
When a mother and father have a child together there isn't just a 50% chance or 25% of them getting one or the other's, their genes actually do all kinds of crazy things where they mix up.
It must amaze you that people come out as people lol.. uhh, you don't know what you are talking about. :/
Actually you don't know what I am talking about (not that you don't know about it but you have mis-identified what I am speaking of) and going on about something else. Btw, what I am talking about in that sentence are called transposons. Its amazing it works at all, no other encoding system would work and produce coherent results with such variability. If you disagree I don't care, but it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
bogdan said:
TheJackel said:
IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.
The Bible is a collection of some 80 books, written over the course of 2000 years by dozens of different people in many different genres. To paint with such a broad brush is the height of ignorance.

You should learn about the things you're debating beforehand so you don't say silly things in the future.
Actually we can because the Bible is supposed to be GOD's letter to humanity.. Perhaps you might admit that it wasn't divinely written?? If so, you have a problem sir... And I've even seen Christians add words, or try to change to meaning of scripture to mean something else more often than I can count. Like I said, if you took all the Christians in the world and compiled all there interpretations of the scripture, it would be completely and utterly incoherent. Everyone seems to have their own self-invented context. Especially when going around professing the will of a Deity that doesn't speak for itself. A perfect example is when theists deflect from Jesus comments about tossing Mountains into the sea ect.. They start self-inventing their own interpretations, add words to, or intentionally don't follow the literal context in which it were written.

 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Likewise, I agree that God was working with what He was given.
o_O

I thought he was omniscient, and the creator of all that there is to be seen, heard, smelled or sensed? He should have known better before hand? Oh wait, maybe it knew all along and thought it would be great! Just like birth defects, animals ripping each other apart for food, or peoples ability to blow each other up and commit genocide. ;) Would you tell me that he wouldn't have known everything Hitler would have done prior to his creation? And the logical magical answer to get people to follow the ten commandments would be to depict himself committing genocide? Seriously?

sola scripturists
you still base much of your belief on scripture. The rest is that of your own self-invention, or professing of GOD.. Now try letting GOD himself profess his own agenda and will.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jason.Wike said:
TheJackel said:
When a mother and father have a child together there isn't just a 50% chance or 25% of them getting one or the other's, their genes actually do all kinds of crazy things where they mix up.
It must amaze you that people come out as people lol.. uhh, you don't know what you are talking about. :/
Actually you don't know what I am talking about (not that you don't know about it but you have mis-identified what I am speaking of) and going on about something else. Btw, what I am talking about in that sentence are called transposons. Its amazing it works at all, no other encoding system would work and produce coherent results with such variability. If you disagree I don't care, but it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
The way you phrased your argument could have gone in different directions. You should have specified what you were talking about. I'm not a mind reader. However, lets touch on that subject for a second ;)

I would Like you to post the Class II DNAtransposons and how this relates to evolution :)
Its amazing it works at all
not really because such things can simply be stated as:

3) "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
TheJackel said:
bogdan said:
TheJackel said:
IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.
The Bible is a collection of some 80 books, written over the course of 2000 years by dozens of different people in many different genres. To paint with such a broad brush is the height of ignorance.

You should learn about the things you're debating beforehand so you don't say silly things in the future.
Actually we can because the Bible is supposed to be GOD's letter to humanity.. Perhaps you might admit that it wasn't divinely written?? If so, you have a problem sir... And I've even seen Christians add words, or try to change to meaning of scripture to mean something else more often than I can count. Like I said, if you took all the Christians in the world and compiled all there interpretations of the scripture, it would be completely and utterly incoherent. Everyone seems to have their own self-invented context. Especially when going around professing the will of a Deity that doesn't speak for itself. A perfect example is when theists deflect from Jesus comments about tossing Mountains into the sea ect.. They start self-inventing their own interpretations, add words to, or intentionally don't follow the literal context in which it were written.
It's a good thing Orthodoxy doesn't base itself off the innerancy of the Bible. Furthermore why would we care about other interpretations by all Christians? Many of them condone heresies, without even knowing it. The only sole authority to interpret the Holy Scriptures is the one who gave birth to them, The Church.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aposphet said:
TheJackel said:
bogdan said:
TheJackel said:
IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.
The Bible is a collection of some 80 books, written over the course of 2000 years by dozens of different people in many different genres. To paint with such a broad brush is the height of ignorance.

You should learn about the things you're debating beforehand so you don't say silly things in the future.
Actually we can because the Bible is supposed to be GOD's letter to humanity.. Perhaps you might admit that it wasn't divinely written?? If so, you have a problem sir... And I've even seen Christians add words, or try to change to meaning of scripture to mean something else more often than I can count. Like I said, if you took all the Christians in the world and compiled all there interpretations of the scripture, it would be completely and utterly incoherent. Everyone seems to have their own self-invented context. Especially when going around professing the will of a Deity that doesn't speak for itself. A perfect example is when theists deflect from Jesus comments about tossing Mountains into the sea ect.. They start self-inventing their own interpretations, add words to, or intentionally don't follow the literal context in which it were written.
It's a good thing Orthodoxy doesn't base itself off the innerancy of the Bible. Furthermore why would we care about other interpretations by all Christians? Many of them condone heresies, without even knowing it. The only sole authority to interpret the Holy Scriptures is the one who gave birth to them, The Church.
Really.. I didn't realize the "Church" had any real authority.. You can also feel free to validate and substantiate that anything would be considered Heresies. Especially when one claims their GOD to be Omniscient. So you think your version of Christianity is truth vs others? Care to validate that? Perhaps have GOD himself to speak for himself and profess his own will? And what makes you think I trust the Church? The Church doesn't have any authority what-so-ever.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
I'm going to be very basic and superficial about this. If any other board member wants to expand or correct me, please by all means.

There are a few things you would have to suppose before I actually validate the authority of the Church, namely the Orthodox Church.

So you must first suppose that Jesus Christ is the God-incarnate. Fully man and fully God. He is the direct image of the unoriginate Father.

Also you must also suppose that Jesus Christ established just one Church. And in this Church he gave authority to the Apostles and passed down the tradition of the Church to their discsiples, so on and so forth. Established a line of succession with bishops, priests and deacons.

Once you suppose this then we can move forward, and I think it's a fair supposition no?

So this one Church had the authority for example using what are known as Ecumenical Councils, to distinguish what is heresy and from what is tradition. But also establishing key doctrines of the Christian belief. 325AD the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea was formed and established a creed of what the Church believed. You can read this creed here: http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed It also discussed Arianism, which was deemed as a heresy by this Council.

Now as you are probably well aware of there were gnostic gospels and writings around that claimed to be written by the apostles themselves, like the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdelene, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.

However the Bible wasn't canonically formed until 397AD at the Council of Carthage. So if the Bible wasn't formed until that late, what in the world did Christians believe and accept? By Holy Tradition, the faith that was passed down by the Apostles. So with this Tradition it selected which documents that were written by the Apostles or what was accepted by the Church. So by the Church can it only properly interpret the Bible because it gave birth to it.

You still following me?

But why then, like you say, people don't hold the Church to authority? Well there were certain events and people in history that went above the Church's authority on some of its dogma and doctrine. I'm not going to give you a history lesson on this because it is pretty lengthy and my own knowledge is vague at best. But keeping this in mind led to what we would classify the Great Schism of 1054AD. Where the Roman Patriachate at the time (there were 5 in total) schismed away for various reasons, for example adding what is called the filioque clause to a 700 year old Nicene Creed. So when this Patriachate schismed he established what we know as Roman Catholicsm, and in turn that Patriachate became the Pope. Now this is a very superficial high overview of what happened during this time, granted I could go much more in depth but I don't want to spend too much time here. However it must be known what lead to this more or less is people issued certain doctrines that went above the actual authority of the Church. And because of going against that authoirty, it was only a matter of time until certain people started questioning if Christ actually existed, what was He like, etc etc.

Those original 4 Patriachates (One in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople) though that remained in communion? Became the Orthodox Church which claims it is the original Church Christ established. By the canons of the Church, the tradition and its history, it is qualified to make this claim. It traces its lineage all the way back to the Apostles. Has professed the same faith for 2000 years. Granted I haven't talked about Oriental Orthodox or Old Calendarists, but I was to be as basic as I can about this so we are on the same page. Now on the Bible, the early Church used a Greek version of the OT called the Septuagint, which was a Jewish translation that was more or less completed in 145 BCE. There were quite a number of changes made into the Septuagint which reflected certain prophecies, etc. It has alot more books than what is found in the majority of Protestant Bibles and has books that Roman Catholics do not use either. Furthermore if the Orthodox Church gave birth to the Bible, which it claims, should it not have the authority on its interpretation?
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So you must first suppose that Jesus Christ is the God-incarnate.
I don't suppose it.. Perhaps your Church can validate that for us because it seems to do a lot of "supposing". I even gave you and the Church a Jesus honesty test and that didn't bare any fruit either. So lets suppose man is professing the will of a deity vs a deity professing it's own will. So do you play the wager game? I see all assertions of heresy ect and yet no validation of such.. Especially when you claim a GOD to be Omniscient.. Heresy at that point would be impossible anyways  ::) So before you go about claiming heresy, or that people like gays are abominations ect..Take some time to critically think about your positions. Perhaps you can have your GOD come before man and simply just say "hey, this is how it works kids". Oh yeah, the claim that "GOD" chooses not to interfere right? Perhaps you could validate that as well? Your Church only seems to have Authority over assumptions. And when it comes down to it, giving if your GOD existed, the Church would hold no authority what-so-ever. Organized religions these days are a multi-billion dollar industry. The profiteering off ignorance. Regardless, you are in no position to be speaking for something you can't even show to exist. The horses mouth is the only mouth that matters in this discussion.

 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
TheJackel said:
So you must first suppose that Jesus Christ is the God-incarnate.
I don't suppose it.. Perhaps your Church can validate that for us because it seems to do a lot of "supposing". I even gave you and the Church a Jesus honesty test and that didn't bare any fruit either. So lets suppose man is professing the will of a deity vs a deity professing it's own will. So do you play the wager game? I see all assertions of heresy ect and yet no validation of such.. Especially when you claim a GOD to be Omniscient.. Heresy at that point would be impossible anyways  ::) So before you go about claiming heresy, or that people like gays are abominations ect..Take some time to critically think about your positions. Perhaps you can have your GOD come before man and simply just say "hey, this is how it works kids". Oh yeah, the claim that "GOD" chooses not to interfere right? Perhaps you could validate that as well? Your Church only seems to have Authority over assumptions. And when it comes down to it, giving if your GOD existed, the Church would hold no authority what-so-ever. Organized religions these days are a multi-billion dollar industry. The profiteering off ignorance. Regardless, you are in no position to be speaking for something you can't even show to exist. The horses mouth is the only mouth that matters in this discussion.

One time I bit this guy in the nose and he became a tulip. How many shoulders do you have?
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
24
Location
The Underground
TheJackel said:
And real truth is never true without actually validating it.
The irony. Moving forward, that is not how it works. Real truth is true whether we can "validate" it or not. I think a more accurate way to view it would be to state that we are unable to definitively know if something is "real truth" UNLESS we can validate it. In which case, I think we would agree. However, we then have to ask ourselves the perplexing question of as to what constitutes sufficient validation.

Assumptions can but rarely lead to truth.
Even more irony. That is the same thing you are doing right now. Moving on, you are falsely assuming that the authors in question were just making baseless assumptions.

Spiritual truth is what you seek in the philosophy of your belief, but even then without validation actual truth is never verified, or substantiated.
>assuming it is not validated

Errors in the Bible point to inability to establish truth. It's pretty much a mess.
Only if you interpret it without the proper lenses of the Church

It's a matter of what truth of philosophy you want to gain from it or see in it.
Nope. It's a matter of submitting to the traditions we were taught via word and epistle from the Apostles which has further been expanded upon, enlightened and explained by God-inspired Church Fathers and theologians through the ages--whether we want to see it or not. Understanding truth in Orthodoxy is more so a matter of submission and humility than simply seeing what we want.

I never suggested these discrepancies were swept under the rug.  The discrepancies I'm describing are the superficial things, like historical and scientific claims, and inner contradictions in the Scriptures.
Which are not a problem to us because we are not Sola Scriptura literalist Protestants

Those aren't superficial.. Especially when one of the major contradictions (especially in the New Testament) is Unconditional Love while in the bible GOD himself commits Genocide or hypocrisy of the 10 commandments.
A literalist now are we? How many times do I have to tell you that this is not literalist Protestants? Don't just try to 'lump' all Christianity together because your only exposure to it has been from your backwards Sola Scriptura Bible literalist background. If you are going to debate us, learn about us first. I wouldn't go into a debate with an atheist using arguments against Hinduism, so why do you go into a debate with the Orthodox using arguments against Protestants?

I don't find spiritual truth in death, murder, genocide, or even the invention of a food chain that rips each-other apart for food to at all be appealing.
That's because you are not a Bronze Age desert barbarian with a childlike mind. While these tales and fables may seem disturbing to you--and rightly so (I'd be more disturbed if they did NOT disturb you)--they may have been seen as glorious to the original people they were written to who lived in the desert nigh 5,000 or so years ago. I find it funny that you had an orgasm for information theory earlier, yet failed to realize this. The ultimate spiritual truth of the Bible is still the same--however, the best way to express it and get it "through" to people will vary because not all people are the same. What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. Being that humanity has attained a higher level of understanding since the Bronze Age, we now no longer need these violent, disturbing tales to get the spiritual message across to us, but can skip right to the spiritual message itself.

The spiritual contradictions of the bible are equally apart of the problem for me.
There are only spiritual contradictions when you read them without the guidance of the Church. In fact, I would be more disturbed if you didn't find any spiritual contradictions in reading the Bible without the Church.
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
24
Location
The Underground
TheJackel said:
Actually it does..
Nope. It would only state that Pascal had an agenda. Whether or not the logic used in the wager is true or not depends solely on our critical analysis of the logic--not on whether Pascal had an intention to use it in a manipulative way or not.

The wager is the assumption of two theoretical options when there are an untold number of theoretical options.
Either the God of Christianity exists or He does not exist, a 50/50 chance, the law of the excluded middle. There are no "other options", either He exists or He does not exist. This simple premise is the foundation of Pascal's Wager. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Pascal's further arguments about what this entails--I think that he did in fact get it wrong and overemphasized the benefits if God exists and ignored several of the cons if we go on worshipping Him even though He doesn't exist--but this simple premise--either the Christian God exists or does not exist--are the only two 50/50 options there are in regards to the topic.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JamesR said:
Either the God of Christianity exists or He does not exist, a 50/50 chance, the law of the excluded middle. There are no "other options", either He exists or He does not exist.  [. . .] but this simple premise--either the Christian God exists or does not exist--are the only two 50/50 options there are in regards to the topic.
I wish you were really wealthy and like to gamble and lived right next door to me.
 

adampjr

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
South Carolina
JamesR said:
TheJackel said:
Actually it does..
Nope. It would only state that Pascal had an agenda. Whether or not the logic used in the wager is true or not depends solely on our critical analysis of the logic--not on whether Pascal had an intention to use it in a manipulative way or not.

The wager is the assumption of two theoretical options when there are an untold number of theoretical options.
Either the God of Christianity exists or He does not exist, a 50/50 chance, the law of the excluded middle. There are no "other options", either He exists or He does not exist. This simple premise is the foundation of Pascal's Wager. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Pascal's further arguments about what this entails--I think that he did in fact get it wrong and overemphasized the benefits if God exists and ignored several of the cons if we go on worshipping Him even though He doesn't exist--but this simple premise--either the Christian God exists or does not exist--are the only two 50/50 options there are in regards to the topic.
Two options does not mean a 50/50 chance.
 

jmbejdl

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Aylesbury
adampjr said:
JamesR said:
TheJackel said:
Actually it does..
Nope. It would only state that Pascal had an agenda. Whether or not the logic used in the wager is true or not depends solely on our critical analysis of the logic--not on whether Pascal had an intention to use it in a manipulative way or not.

The wager is the assumption of two theoretical options when there are an untold number of theoretical options.
Either the God of Christianity exists or He does not exist, a 50/50 chance, the law of the excluded middle. There are no "other options", either He exists or He does not exist. This simple premise is the foundation of Pascal's Wager. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Pascal's further arguments about what this entails--I think that he did in fact get it wrong and overemphasized the benefits if God exists and ignored several of the cons if we go on worshipping Him even though He doesn't exist--but this simple premise--either the Christian God exists or does not exist--are the only two 50/50 options there are in regards to the topic.
Two options does not mean a 50/50 chance.
Indeed. I think James should maybe try playing the lottery. I mean he can only either win or not win - must be a 50/50 chance of winning
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pascals wager is silly.. You would have to then assume 50/50 that the Pixie fairy lords are the true GODS and that yours is a false idol... Here you are now running the risk of eternal torture of the Pixie lords if you continue to worship this false Idol. However, everyone knows the Pascal wager is essentially nonsense.
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Whoah, the thread resurrection actually worked. He came back after 2 years.  :eek:
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheJackel said:
However, everyone knows the Pascal wager is essentially nonsense.
Actually it is not.

It is nonsense to those who haven't read Pascal (read nearly everyone) and don't understand the context for the wager (read nearly everyone who has "read" Pascal).

I think I have to repeat this every 8 months or something.

Doesn't mean it is "right" or "correct", but real thought has nothing to do with either.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Now concerning the existence of Jesus is rather a fun game considering there is no contemporary record of his existence.. But it goes much deeper than that considering much of what Jesus has said has come from Pagan philosophers that existed during and before his time.. It's even more amusing that it's entirely pagan in origin. What's more interesting is that Christianity really had nothing to do with Yahwism as it pretty much exploited that religious movement to espouse their cult around a Sun GOD..  Basically Christianity essentially began regarding a supposed prophet of Yahweh, and now it's a religious movement to try and usurp and equate Yahweh to Jesus.  Both the Jews and the House of Yahweh, and even Islam will attest to this issue. And we all know that for anyone to claim a trinity in the bible they have to quote mine the bible and make erroneous use of the forged verse in John 5..  And a trinity that makes no coherent sense when you actually try to apply it in other sections of the bible such as Acts, or Genesis..  The other big mistake is Christians thinking the use of the term "Messiah" magically means Jesus when does not.  Worse yet, the Christians would need to explain why Immanuel was actually the foretold to be "Messiah" to which would be related to the Pagan mythology of the EL pantheon..

And it gets worse than that because the origins of Yahweh most likely came from the Eyptian and Sumerian moon GOD's "Sin" and "Yah".. Mt Sinai means "Moon Mountain", and Hallelujah (yah) doesn't just mean "praise Yahweh /Jah", it translates to "praise the moon GOD"


   One of the false gods the Jews worshipped was Yah. This pagan idol has its roots in Babylon and in Egypt. This is the lunar or moon god. In Babylon the moon god is called "Ia" or Ya. It has both a female and a male identity. In Egypt the Babylonian female "Ia or Ya" was changed into a male god and the female god was named "shua" and made the sky god. When a person then combines these forms into Iashua or Yahshua they have made the moon god the sky god. This Babylonian/Egypt deity is also called Baal throughout the Scriptures. The Jews did worshiped the moon god when they apostated into idolatry from the true God Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (Elohim/Adonai). Look up the word moon in Hebrew and it is "yareah" which is the same as "Yahweh." Modern Hebrew spells it different now to distort the real identity of their ancient Yah god. They now spell it "yareach." The Yah moon god remains controversial, but the evidence of the Jewish god Yah as the same god as the Babylonian god "Ia-ya" and or the Egyptian moon god Yah is pretty robust.

   "yah, jah, ia" is nothing but the moon god. Saying hallelu-jah means praise the moon god.
This to which is actually supported by archeology:

   http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VpRyWrymPxQ/TgJg2JGeVxI/AAAAAAAAAR0/c5FT_wVMGCM/s1600/batyah-moon-god-yah.jpg
   http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0Yddrvouo04/TfySaY0kXuI/AAAAAAAAARk/i28_Qllwa3U/s320/hallelu-yah-stone.jpg

As well as supported by:

   Aah (Yahh): The Moon-God (Yareach - Hebrew)
   excerpted from E.A. Wallis Budge Hieroglyphic Dictionary Vol. I. p.29b

   http://nuwaubian-hotep.net/docs/yah/hebrew_egyptian_moon_god_yah.jpg

And of course through the process of Usurping the Canaanite Pantheon, their Moon Mountain GOD was likely a Volcano GOD of War, or became one through the process of usurping as you can really get into here..

Yahweh: The worshiping of a Volcano / fire GOD of War.

Mountain GOD Worship: Yahweh, God of the Mountains.


Hence the GOD of Abraham was not Yahweh, it was the Amorite GOD Shaddai to which was also referred to as the usurper and equated to EL of the Canaanite Pantheon.  Yahweh's roots do not appear to involve the Canaanite pantheon, especially when EL, El Elyon, and El Shaddai are Canaanite and Amorite deities. It's likely the Shasu of Yahweh were likely the evicted Hyksos and brought their moon GOD with them.. and that EL Elyon was only ever attested to the El Pantheon in regards to EL and his son Ba'al.. And no, "EL" was not ever a generic term for "GOD" in that era..It only became so after Yahwists usurped the Canaanite pantheon, or the GOD "EL".  And ba'al gives you a clue in how Yahweh gets equated and introduced into the Pantheon as one of the sons of EL. What's even more interesting is that if you read the story of the battle of Yam vs Ba'al, it's rather funny how Yahweh plays the role of Yam and usurps ba'al by destroying him giving Yahweh's hatred for Ba'al in the bible. However,  with the exception that the story ends with Yahweh winning and taking the thrown.. Hence, in usurping the Canaanite Pantheon, it's a clever play into the El Pantheon mythology and stories..  Lots of clever use of usurping going on back in those ancient times to which we see happening today with Christianity now trying to do the same thing with Yahweh..

In all truth, Christianity is essentially a mixed mutt of usurped pagan oral traditions, religions, gods, beliefs, rituals, philosophy, and culture..  It's why we can look at it and scoff at it's supposed validity even when concerning the "orthodox Church" to whom are essentially just Panentheists / pantheists using the Christian religion as a foundation for their beliefs.. It's like they really believe their version of ancient pagan mythology and their modern Panentheist approach to it would some how be any less mythical. :/
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
And not one point there is true.
Yeah, except I actually have citations and links in my posts, and in my posted articles that back me up. But I am not surprised at that blanketed statement / response. I can go much deeper into the subject btw concerning Jesus himself. But those two articles I posted are well supported and do go over the shasu, Abraham, and many other issues.. Most of you don't get how intertwined that region of the world was.. I will come back later tonight and provide a lot of information regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ and where much of that comes from.. And much of that deals with Egyptian mythology... Not entirely, but a good chunk of it does. And I am not talking about the common debunked parallels you might be thinking of as I understand very well that Christianity is a mixed mutt of various Pagan beliefs ect.... ;)
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Netherlands
TheJackel said:
Cyrillic said:
And not one point there is true.
Yeah, except I actually have citations and links in my posts, and in my posted articles that back me up. But I am not surprised at that blanketed statement / response. I can go much deeper into the subject btw concerning Jesus himself. But those two articles I posted are well supported and do go over the shasu, Abraham, and many other issues.. Most of you don't get how intertwined that region of the world was.. I will come back later tonight and provide a lot of information regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ and where much of that comes from.. And much of that deals with Egyptian mythology... Not entirely, but a good chunk of it does. And I am not talking about the common debunked parallels you might be thinking of as I understand very well that Christianity is a mixed mutt of various Pagan beliefs ect.... ;)
Don't bother.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
TheJackel said:
Cyrillic said:
And not one point there is true.
Yeah, except I actually have citations and links in my posts, and in my posted articles that back me up. But I am not surprised at that blanketed statement / response. I can go much deeper into the subject btw concerning Jesus himself. But those two articles I posted are well supported and do go over the shasu, Abraham, and many other issues.. Most of you don't get how intertwined that region of the world was.. I will come back later tonight and provide a lot of information regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ and where much of that comes from.. And much of that deals with Egyptian mythology... Not entirely, but a good chunk of it does. And I am not talking about the common debunked parallels you might be thinking of as I understand very well that Christianity is a mixed mutt of various Pagan beliefs ect.... ;)
The germinated serenity returns my colonel's shirt. Fermenting, for a moment, the zoo, you can marinate the filter with a protruding habit. Still, parallel blankets match a sampling of giggling torsos.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Chicago
TheJackel said:
Now concerning the existence of Jesus is rather a fun game considering there is no contemporary record of his existence.. But it goes much deeper than that considering much of what Jesus has said has come from Pagan philosophers that existed during and before his time.. It's even more amusing that it's entirely pagan in origin. What's more interesting is that Christianity really had nothing to do with Yahwism as it pretty much exploited that religious movement to espouse their cult around a Sun GOD..  Basically Christianity essentially began regarding a supposed prophet of Yahweh, and now it's a religious movement to try and usurp and equate Yahweh to Jesus.  Both the Jews and the House of Yahweh, and even Islam will attest to this issue. And we all know that for anyone to claim a trinity in the bible they have to quote mine the bible and make erroneous use of the forged verse in John 5..  And a trinity that makes no coherent sense when you actually try to apply it in other sections of the bible such as Acts, or Genesis..  The other big mistake is Christians thinking the use of the term "Messiah" magically means Jesus when does not.  Worse yet, the Christians would need to explain why Immanuel was actually the foretold to be "Messiah" to which would be related to the Pagan mythology of the EL pantheon..

And it gets worse than that because the origins of Yahweh most likely came from the Eyptian and Sumerian moon GOD's "Sin" and "Yah".. Mt Sinai means "Moon Mountain", and Hallelujah (yah) doesn't just mean "praise Yahweh /Jah", it translates to "praise the moon GOD"


   One of the false gods the Jews worshipped was Yah. This pagan idol has its roots in Babylon and in Egypt. This is the lunar or moon god. In Babylon the moon god is called "Ia" or Ya. It has both a female and a male identity. In Egypt the Babylonian female "Ia or Ya" was changed into a male god and the female god was named "shua" and made the sky god. When a person then combines these forms into Iashua or Yahshua they have made the moon god the sky god. This Babylonian/Egypt deity is also called Baal throughout the Scriptures. The Jews did worshiped the moon god when they apostated into idolatry from the true God Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (Elohim/Adonai). Look up the word moon in Hebrew and it is "yareah" which is the same as "Yahweh." Modern Hebrew spells it different now to distort the real identity of their ancient Yah god. They now spell it "yareach." The Yah moon god remains controversial, but the evidence of the Jewish god Yah as the same god as the Babylonian god "Ia-ya" and or the Egyptian moon god Yah is pretty robust.

   "yah, jah, ia" is nothing but the moon god. Saying hallelu-jah means praise the moon god.
This to which is actually supported by archeology:

   http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VpRyWrymPxQ/TgJg2JGeVxI/AAAAAAAAAR0/c5FT_wVMGCM/s1600/batyah-moon-god-yah.jpg
   http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0Yddrvouo04/TfySaY0kXuI/AAAAAAAAARk/i28_Qllwa3U/s320/hallelu-yah-stone.jpg

As well as supported by:

   Aah (Yahh): The Moon-God (Yareach - Hebrew)
   excerpted from E.A. Wallis Budge Hieroglyphic Dictionary Vol. I. p.29b

   http://nuwaubian-hotep.net/docs/yah/hebrew_egyptian_moon_god_yah.jpg

And of course through the process of Usurping the Canaanite Pantheon, their Moon Mountain GOD was likely a Volcano GOD of War, or became one through the process of usurping as you can really get into here..

Yahweh: The worshiping of a Volcano / fire GOD of War.

Mountain GOD Worship: Yahweh, God of the Mountains.


Hence the GOD of Abraham was not Yahweh, it was the Amorite GOD Shaddai to which was also referred to as the usurper and equated to EL of the Canaanite Pantheon.  Yahweh's roots do not appear to involve the Canaanite pantheon, especially when EL, El Elyon, and El Shaddai are Canaanite and Amorite deities. It's likely the Shasu of Yahweh were likely the evicted Hyksos and brought their moon GOD with them.. and that EL Elyon was only ever attested to the El Pantheon in regards to EL and his son Ba'al.. And no, "EL" was not ever a generic term for "GOD" in that era..It only became so after Yahwists usurped the Canaanite pantheon, or the GOD "EL".  And ba'al gives you a clue in how Yahweh gets equated and introduced into the Pantheon as one of the sons of EL. What's even more interesting is that if you read the story of the battle of Yam vs Ba'al, it's rather funny how Yahweh plays the role of Yam and usurps ba'al by destroying him giving Yahweh's hatred for Ba'al in the bible. However,  with the exception that the story ends with Yahweh winning and taking the thrown.. Hence, in usurping the Canaanite Pantheon, it's a clever play into the El Pantheon mythology and stories..  Lots of clever use of usurping going on back in those ancient times to which we see happening today with Christianity now trying to do the same thing with Yahweh..

In all truth, Christianity is essentially a mixed mutt of usurped pagan oral traditions, religions, gods, beliefs, rituals, philosophy, and culture..  It's why we can look at it and scoff at it's supposed validity even when concerning the "orthodox Church" to whom are essentially just Panentheists / pantheists using the Christian religion as a foundation for their beliefs.. It's like they really believe their version of ancient pagan mythology and their modern Panentheist approach to it would some how be any less mythical. :/
I wouldn't believe it unless I saw it with my own eyes: someone has actually made the Jehovah Witnesses look rational and well thought out.
 
Top