whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Biblical Contradictions => Topic started by: violatedsmurf80 on August 14, 2011, 02:46:15 PM

Title: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on August 14, 2011, 02:46:15 PM
A friend of mine ask me to read this article http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html) and all i could think about is Leviticus 19:18. does any one see any other flaws in this argument?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Emily on August 14, 2011, 02:54:37 PM
That whole website is full of flaws.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: jetson on August 14, 2011, 02:56:20 PM
It's poorly argued, like a rookie apologist.  It boils down to granting some god that authority to kill under it's own rules.  And the crap regarding translations is even worse. Once again, someone gets to claim they know what the Bible means, while others, specifically atheists, do not. Simply because they read the KJV, for example.

Velkyn will stop by and put it in more succinct words, but basically, the article sucks.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 14, 2011, 03:50:04 PM

Velkyn will stop by and put it in more succinct words, but basically, the article sucks.

I don't think you can say it anymore succinct than that.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 14, 2011, 06:40:03 PM
As I look at the scriptures and what is said about killing it has become obvious to me that in the end, this issue is one of authority. I say this because this issue is not set in stone in the texts as the same God that says do not kill (or murder) also has ordered the killing of entire societies. What gives?
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards. 
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Brakeman on August 14, 2011, 06:58:19 PM
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses.

Except that when Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, mankind was granted the same morals of right and wrong as god. We are the equal of god in that manner. Thus if something is wrong to us, it is also wrong for god.

Read genesis ..
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: jetson on August 14, 2011, 07:13:11 PM
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.

This might sound great to a believer, but it sounds ridiculous to an atheist.  If you really want the truth about the OT, you're going to need a time machine, and a lot of patience to parse all of the oral traditions, and each of their origins.  I'm sure it would shake up everything that even the most hardened Jews believe.

Do not kill, being one of the most direct "commandments", is completely useless when there is no authority.  Who upholds the law?  In the case of humans, the law was obvious, probably very early in human history.  But enforcing it must have come later.  One local tribe invented a god, and the rest of the humans are supposed to fall in line?  I don't think so, and history bears this out quite nicely.

Just take a look at some of the most popular gods of mythology, gods that many humans believed were real, and their laws.  And just imagine if we were arguing over whether that god had the authority to make or enforce such laws?  We would all be laughing out loud at the silliness of granting a Greek god, for example, the benefit of the doubt, as we discuss it's authority.  This is what it sounds like to atheists.

The sooner people accept that all gods are imaginary, the sooner it will become crystal clear that the Bible is barely worthy of literary content, much less a book of laws for modern humans.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Backspace on August 14, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
The commandment against killing/murdering is from the Exodus 20 tablets.  That commandment is conspicuously absent from the Exodus 34 tablets (which Yahweh said were exactly the same as those from Ex.20).  It was probably left out after Moses instigated the slaughter of 3,000 men, women, and children of his tribe after smashing the first set...

 &)

Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 14, 2011, 08:07:35 PM
As I look at the scriptures and what is said about killing it has become obvious to me that in the end, this issue is one of authority. I say this because this issue is not set in stone in the texts as the same God that says do not kill (or murder) also has ordered the killing of entire societies. What gives?
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.

The glaring flaw in this is that it's an open license to kill. If god and those told to kill by god have the authority to do so, what happens when someones god tells them to kill you? Or your family.

In Islam their god tells them to kill people who don't believe in their god (actually so does Christianity, but we'll leave that alone for now). Assuming that their god is the real one; then they're fully within their right to drag you and your loved ones out in the street and whack off your heads. Somehow I'm guessing you would consider this as not being a very moral action.

What this really points to is the greater issue that atheists have been pointing out for centuries. Without proof of god, and proof of what he actually commands (which does not yet exist in any form); then religion serves no other purpose than to allow millions of people to do together, what only a single lunatic would do on his own.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on August 14, 2011, 08:16:52 PM
As I look at the scriptures and what is said about killing it has become obvious to me that in the end, this issue is one of authority. I say this because this issue is not set in stone in the texts as the same God that says do not kill (or murder) also has ordered the killing of entire societies. What gives?
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.


Ok let look at this the most logical way we can OT consider that there was an empire that was grater the Israelite that had the same commandment or at least close enough to them was King Hammurabi who ruled Babylon in which became Hammurabi code which is much like the ten commandments. Look up "Inventing God's Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi".


I dont think we need proof of "GoD" because we all know that answer,  i think we need to show how the bible was recorded and how they took many of the beliefs of religions prior to there to make a name for them self's so that they would stop coming under attack by larger population.   
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: jetson on August 14, 2011, 08:36:15 PM

What this really points to is the greater issue that atheists have been pointing out for centuries. Without proof of god, and proof of what he actually commands (which does not yet exist in any form); then religion serves no other purpose than to allow millions of people to do together, what only a single lunatic would do on his own.

This.

This is one reason why I am an atheist.  I have directly confronted theist friends with this very simple question: "Would you kill your child if God commanded you to do so?"  This is a serious problem for Christians, and most of them ignore the question by proclaiming that God would never do such a thing.  But being the heathen that I am, I push as hard as I can, and I have successfully cornered them, and forced them to say yes.  Because they realize that by saying no, their commitment and obedience to their god is in doubt, and so is their eternal salvation.  It's disgusting when you really think about it.

These same people will agree that whenever a person appears on television, accused of killing their children because God told them to, they are nothing short of mentally corrupt and unstable.  They are crazy. 

You can find this question sprinkled throughout this forum as well, and none of them have ended well for the theist.

Christians will claim that their God would never command such a thing, yet it is sprinkled throughout the Bible.  They excuse the OT killings because Jesus came and gave his life for everyone's sins.  It's all bullshit, wrapped in mythology, and steeped in magic and mystery to the point that no clear thinking, fairly rational person could ever truly support.  And we still allow it in modern society...
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Add Homonym on August 15, 2011, 01:32:40 AM
I have directly confronted theist friends with this very simple question: "Would you kill your child if God commanded you to do so?"

That's not fair. They know that God does not exist, so would not ask them to do it.

If you simultaneously got proof that God was real, and was going to send you to hell if you didn't kill your child, I think most people would have a go, if they had any sense.

Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 15, 2011, 01:59:17 AM
"Thou shalt not kill" is rooted in tribalism.  A person who killed another tribe member was a threat to the tribe's existence; if they killed one tribe member, they could easily kill others.  The tribal leaders were the ones who had the ultimate authority, and it was easy to justify that authority by the fact of the tribe's continued existence (due to the efforts of past members and leaders).  In fact, ancestor worship was just an extension of venerating the previous members of the tribe, without whom the tribe would not have survived.[1]

I sometimes think that the evolution of human moral beliefs is inextricable with the expansion of tribalism.  That is, expanding the concept of the tribe to incorporate a larger and larger group, and accepting people who are different into the tribe.
 1. I wonder if the concept of gods wasn't just originally oneupmanship between tribes who were fighting with each other.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: velkyn on August 15, 2011, 10:52:22 AM
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
Which begs the question, why must God have humans do its bidding?  Why doesn’t God kill the Midianites rather than have humans do it and confuse the question?
Quote
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.
Considering that this is all based on “might equals right” I don’t think it’s hidden at all.  Interesting calling God’s commands “wild cards”, considering how this god does make up nonsense on a whim.  This religion is like paying fizzbin:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_in_Star_Trek#Fizzbin
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: relativetruth on August 15, 2011, 01:44:56 PM
As I look at the scriptures and what is said about killing it has become obvious to me that in the end, this issue is one of authority. I say this because this issue is not set in stone in the texts as the same God that says do not kill (or murder) also has ordered the killing of entire societies. What gives?
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.

What about the suicide bomber who believes he/she is doing some god's will only to find , when they arrive in hell, that they have been mislead by their politicians/religious leaders?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 15, 2011, 02:35:45 PM
What about the suicide bomber who believes he/she is doing some god's will only to find , when they arrive in hell, that they have been mislead by their politicians/religious leaders?

Here's an opening of a can of worms:

All who would dare make the claim that their specific actions are commanded by God should be expected to provide some objective proof that they were in fact commanded to act by God.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: velkyn on August 15, 2011, 02:40:48 PM
Here's an opening of a can of worms:

All who would dare make the claim that their specific actions are commanded by God should be expected to provide some objective proof that they were in fact commanded to act by God.

a good point though, TOT.  We have people claiming to do God's will by killing various people, their own kids, etc.  We also have people claiming to have done "good" things that God "told" them to do.  It's a lot easier for theists to accept the good acts rather than the bad ones. And both have no evidence whatsoever to support their claims. 

Just from this, it should be more than obvious why atheists dont' accept many of the things theists claim.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: relativetruth on August 15, 2011, 03:01:07 PM
What about the suicide bomber who believes he/she is doing some god's will only to find , when they arrive in hell, that they have been mislead by their politicians/religious leaders?

Here's an opening of a can of worms:

All who would dare make the claim that their specific actions are commanded by God should be expected to provide some objective proof that they were in fact commanded to act by God.

So nobody should do anything their preacher/rabbi/vicar/iman etc tells them to do unless these religious leaders can provide objective proof that what they say is the will of God?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 15, 2011, 03:05:26 PM
So nobody should do anything their preacher/rabbi/vicar/iman etc tells them to do unless these religious leaders can provide objective proof that what they say is the will of God?

I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are inn fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: relativetruth on August 15, 2011, 03:18:08 PM
If anybody was ever able to show objective proof of the will of any god then there probably would only be a handful of atheists in existance.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: JeffPT on August 15, 2011, 03:20:14 PM
What if someone wrote a book about the miraculous things one of these preachers did?   Say you didn't know who wrote it, or when they wrote it, and you knew that people had spent a lot of time changing, editing it and redoing it over a decade or so. 

Would that be enough to convince you that the preacher was speaking for God?  Or would you need more than that? 

Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Brakeman on August 15, 2011, 04:20:13 PM
So nobody should do anything their preacher/rabbi/vicar/iman etc tells them to do unless these religious leaders can provide objective proof that what they say is the will of God?

I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are inn fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.

That goes for the gospel writers as well too doesn't it?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 17, 2011, 04:13:50 PM
So nobody should do anything their preacher/rabbi/vicar/iman etc tells them to do unless these religious leaders can provide objective proof that what they say is the will of God?

I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are inn fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.

However since no one to date has ever produced any proof of any kind that god even exists, by your logic here no Christian should ever do anything their religion tells them until they actually have proof. Which no one has ever had.

And for someone who asks how other people dare speak for god, you seem to do a good job of it yourself. Or do you actually have proof and you've just been holding out on us despite all of the many times you've been asked to show it?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 17, 2011, 05:22:15 PM
However since no one to date has ever produced any proof of any kind that god even exists, by your logic here no Christian should ever do anything their religion tells them until they actually have proof. Which no one has ever had.

And for someone who asks how other people dare speak for god, you seem to do a good job of it yourself. Or do you actually have proof and you've just been holding out on us despite all of the many times you've been asked to show it?

Thanks for considering me worthy and I hate to disappoint you, but ole' Truth OT doesn't speak for God (nor does he claim to). All I try to do is relate what the scriptures and the NT says correctly while at the same time calling BS on those (both believers and non believers alike) that misrepresent the messages therein.
Seriously, I have never witnessed anyone doing something that proved God's hand was involved. I have not a shread of 1st hand objective evidence for the existence of God. That is why I cannot speak of God's existence with definity. All I do is say what I believe and I try to give reasons for why I believe what I do. Ancient writers claimed thay saw God acting and were provided with the proof that we so long for. We choose to give heed to those writers or we don't.   

As far as doing what a religion says to do, I believe we must exercise good judgment and common sense before jumping on the bandwagon. If the religion asks one to do things that are considered as good, positive, and uplifting to society, then by all means take heed. If a religion asks you to do things that are mean, hateful, and destructive, then maybe a line in the sand must be drawn.
Now, if God asks someone to do anything, they should do it. One in this instance must have objective proof that God has indeed required an act and that of course would require God miraculously revealing Itself. Since we haven't seen this occur in our lifetimes we should never equate what religion asks with what God requires.

Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Brakeman on August 17, 2011, 05:41:24 PM
Ancient writers claimed..

Why do you believe ancient writers?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 17, 2011, 06:18:14 PM
All I try to do is relate what the scriptures and the NT says correctly while at the same time calling BS on those (both believers and non believers alike) that misrepresent the messages therein

However you can't prove what the scriptures mean beyond your own interpretations. You can't even prove that god had anything to do with the scriptures. Nor can you show that others have misrepresented the scriptures with any argument that isn't also equally applicable to your own.

So yes, you are indeed speaking for your god. Unless you can prove that the scriptures mean what you say they mean. Which is something that everyone is still waiting for.

Everytime you correct someone who "misrepresents" the scriptures, you are saying that you know what god meant, with no ability to prove that you know. The only difference between you and most other Christians is that youève admitted to speculation on some things. It does not change the fact, however, that you are attempting to speak with your gods voice.

Thanks for considering me worthy and I hate to disappoint you, but ole' Truth OT doesn't speak for God (nor does he claim to).

You have not disappointed me. You behave exactly as I would expect you to behave.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 17, 2011, 06:30:44 PM
Ancient writers claimed..

Why do you believe ancient writers?

Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 17, 2011, 06:46:31 PM
However you can't prove what the scriptures mean beyond your own interpretations. You can't even prove that god had anything to do with the scriptures. Nor can you show that others have misrepresented the scriptures with any argument that isn't also equally applicable to your own.

Come back off that tangent Alzy. Proving God had something to do with the scriptures and accurately relaying the messages of scripture BASED ON WHAT THEY SAY have very little if anything to do with each other.
The best way to "prove" what the scriptures or any writings mean is to TAKE THEM FOR THEIR WORD and read them within the written context without bringing in an outside preconceived context of one's own and let the broad context of what is written shape one's understanding.

So yes, you are indeed speaking for your god. Unless you can prove that the scriptures mean what you say they mean. Which is something that everyone is still waiting for.

Since you're waiting, here goes:
I believe the scriptures tell us that Jesus is the son of God and I will use the scriptures to prove it.
 - Matthew 16:13-17
Then, when he went to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples, 'Who are people saying the Son of Man is?'
And they replied, 'Some say you're John the Baptist, others EliJah, and still others say you are JeremiAh or one of the Prophets.'
And he asked, 'But, who do you say that I am?'
And Simon Peter answered: 'You're the Anointed; the Son of the Living God.'
Then Jesus said to him, 'You are blest, Simon, son of JonAh, because this wasn't shown to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in the heavens.

 - Hebrews 1:1-2
1 Long ago, God spoke to our fathers through the Prophets in many places and in many ways. 2 And in the last part of these days, He speaks to us through a Son whom He has made the heir to everything… the one that He used to create the age.  

See, I used the scriptures to prove that they say that Jesus was the Son of God.

Everytime you correct someone who "misrepresents" the scriptures, you are saying that you know what god meant, with no ability to prove that you know. The only difference between you and most other Christians is that youève admitted to speculation on some things. It does not change the fact, however, that you are attempting to speak with your gods voice.

Sorry, but that's just plain WRONG. Everytime a misrepresentation is corrected, the corrector is not saying "I know what God meant", but rather, "what you say the scriptures teach is incorrect, here's what they actually teach."
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 17, 2011, 07:06:37 PM
Come back off that tangent Alzy.

Why? It's a relevant point and it shows your obvious hypocrisy, Truthy.

Proving God had something to do with the scriptures and accurately relaying the messages of scripture BASED ON WHAT THEY SAY have very little if anything to do with each other.

But you're the one determining what is accurate and what is not, many others disagree. You cannot claim that you are accurate without evidence, which you do not have. When you say "scripture says X", you are indeed claiming to know what god is saying; and without evidence.

The best way to "prove" what the scriptures or any writings mean is to TAKE THEM FOR THEIR WORD and read them within the written context without bringing in an outside preconceived context of one's own and let the broad context of what is written shape one's understanding.

Which everyone has different answers to.

You still haven't refuted my point. How is telling other people what the scriptures mean, not claiming to speak for god?

Everytime you correct someone who "misrepresents" the scriptures, you are saying that you know what god meant, with no ability to prove that you know. The only difference between you and most other Christians is that youève admitted to speculation on some things. It does not change the fact, however, that you are attempting to speak with your gods voice.


Sorry, but that's just plain WRONG. Everytime a misrepresentation is corrected, the corrector is not saying "I know what God meant", but rather, "what you say the scriptures teach is incorrect, here's what they actually teach."

The scriptures teach the word of god. They teach what god says. That's the point of them.

When you say "here's what they actually teach", you are saying "here is what god said/wants".

My poor little, Truthy. You really can't see your own hypocrisy can you? Even when it's so painfully evident.

Since you're waiting, here goes:
I believe the scriptures tell us that Jesus is the son of God and I will use the scriptures to prove it.
 - Matthew 16:13-17
Then, when he went to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples, 'Who are people saying the Son of Man is?'
And they replied, 'Some say you're John the Baptist, others EliJah, and still others say you are JeremiAh or one of the Prophets.'
And he asked, 'But, who do you say that I am?'
And Simon Peter answered: 'You're the Anointed; the Son of the Living God.'
Then Jesus said to him, 'You are blest, Simon, son of JonAh, because this wasn't shown to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in the heavens.
 - Hebrews 1:1-2
1 Long ago, God spoke to our fathers through the Prophets in many places and in many ways. 2 And in the last part of these days, He speaks to us through a Son whom He has made the heir to everything… the one that He used to create the age.

See, I used the scriptures to prove that they say that Jesus was the Son of God.

And what of those who disagree with you and prove it with scripture? Why are you right and they wrong? You're putting words into your gods mouth by asserting that the scripture is what you think it is and dismissing every other alternative.

The best way to "prove" what the scriptures or any writings mean is to TAKE THEM FOR THEIR WORD and read them within the written context without bringing in an outside preconceived context of one's own and let the broad context of what is written shape one's understanding.

Not at all. You don't "prove" what writings mean unless it says something that can be proven. We read them within the context and we analyze them and subject them to analysis in order to come to an idea of what we think that they might have meant. What we don't claim is that we know what the author meant with certainty and that every other interpretation is wrong. Unless we have actual proof that the interpetation is wrong.

Do you come to your interpretations from studying the text. Yes.

Can you claim that others are wrong about their interpretations. No. At least not honestly.

Not unless you have some means of objectively varifying that your conclusions are true. And again, you don't.

In claiming that you know what the authors meant, and what the scriptures actually mean; you are claiming to know what your god means; and without any reason for doing so.

Come on, Truthy. Raise the bar of thought a little. My back is getting a little sore from bending down to your level and this is starting to get fairly pathetic on your end.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Chronos on August 17, 2011, 07:10:23 PM
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq3cn5xCkK1qz8vzlo1_500.jpg) (http://npr.tumblr.com/post/9051488428/neylano-kill-not-what-other-american-city)
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Brakeman on August 17, 2011, 09:14:34 PM
Ancient writers claimed..

Why do you believe ancient writers?

Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Other stories of gods came from the same area and are even older with ther own tradition, or are you saying that it's your demographic, and your tradition?

It sounds pretty darn weak either way, You're aware of that right?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: JeffPT on August 17, 2011, 09:19:12 PM
Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life? 
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 17, 2011, 09:43:10 PM
by Alzy
Quote
You don't "prove" what writings mean unless it says something that can be proven. We read them within the context and we analyze them and subject them to analysis in order to come to an idea of what we think that they might have meant. What we don't claim is that we know what the author meant with certainty and that every other interpretation is wrong. Unless we have actual proof that the interpetation is wrong.

Do you come to your interpretations from studying the text. Yes.

Can you claim that others are wrong about their interpretations. No. At least not honestly.

Not unless you have some means of objectively varifying that your conclusions are true. And again, you don't.

In claiming that you know what the authors meant, and what the scriptures actually mean; you are claiming to know what your god means; and without any reason for doing so.

You're just being obtuse. To imply that one cannot be objective and correct in pointing out errors in interpretation is in many ways an ignorant cop out. The texts themselves are the means by which verification can be obtained in almost all biblical subject matter.
Let me be clear, in most instances the texts themselves tell the reader what the authors meant! Therefore, when claims about what the scriptures say are put forth those claims can be examined by the texts. For instnce, it is claimed that the devil was once an angel named Lucifer. This claim can be dissected and debunked using the scriptures because the scriptures make no such claim. 
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 17, 2011, 09:48:51 PM
Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life?

Determing truth, NO. Biasing my opinions, YEP.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Brakeman on August 17, 2011, 10:26:38 PM
Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life?

Determing truth, NO. Biasing my opinions, YEP.
You can self bias your outward postulates, but what you really believe, is based upon what you value as evidence. I'm pretty sure one doesn't choose to believe stuff, they either do, or they don't, based on their own evidence.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: velkyn on August 18, 2011, 09:46:34 AM
Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life?

Determing truth, NO. Biasing my opinions, YEP.

I find this contradictory since you said this earlier

Quote
I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are inn fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.
 

Your three things don't fit into this demand for evidence. Why do you demand evidence for one but not the other?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 18, 2011, 10:26:57 AM
Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life?

Determing truth, NO. Biasing my opinions, YEP.

I find this contradictory since you said this earlier

Quote
I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are in fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.
 

Your three things don't fit into this demand for evidence. Why do you demand evidence for one but not the other?


I’m a bit confused at what you see as contradictory. Initially I said that preachers, vicars, etc. who dare claim to be authority figures need to prove proof of their authority. I stand by that. How does me saying that one’s (specifically mines in this instance) demographics, traditions, and personal desires bias one’s opinions, but are not used to determine fact stand against what I said previously?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: velkyn on August 18, 2011, 11:56:12 AM
I’m a bit confused at what you see as contradictory. Initially I said that preachers, vicars, etc. who dare claim to be authority figures need to prove proof of their authority. I stand by that. How does me saying that one’s (specifically mines in this instance) demographics, traditions, and personal desires bias one’s opinions, but are not used to determine fact stand against what I said previously?

you demand evidence from someone to prove their validity.  Why do you not require the same of that which you believe in?  What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?  Something that can't be anything else but the miracle you would demand of those others in authority.   
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 18, 2011, 12:42:35 PM
you demand evidence from someone to prove their validity.  Why do you not require the same of that which you believe in?  What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?  Something that can't be anything else but the miracle you would demand of those others in authority.

For me to prove that what I believe is true, I, like anyone else must be able to demonstrate why. I cannot prove that the Bible that I happen to believe in is true.
What the Bible demonstrates as it relates to those who speak for God is that those individuals typically were able to exhibit miraculous signs that aided in confirming that their words were in fact given them by God. 

Your question of: "What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?" is very fair. The only thing that I can say in response and be honest in the process is that according to the writings, my God has on various occasions revealed Himself through the miraculous in the sight of men. This answer of course leads to the issue of just how much if any credence we should lend to those writers.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: velkyn on August 18, 2011, 01:02:49 PM
For me to prove that what I believe is true, I, like anyone else must be able to demonstrate why. I cannot prove that the Bible that I happen to believe in is true.
What the Bible demonstrates as it relates to those who speak for God is that those individuals typically were able to exhibit miraculous signs that aided in confirming that their words were in fact given them by God.
Sorry, but no, TOT. You believe tha the bible does such a thing.  I only see a bunch of stories that claim these things but do not demonstrate that any of this is true.   

Quote
Your question of: "What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?" is very fair. The only thing that I can say in response and be honest in the process is that according to the writings, my God has on various occasions revealed Himself through the miraculous in the sight of men. This answer of course leads to the issue of just how much if any credence we should lend to those writers.

Indeed.  You go by anecdotes and for what reason?  I can understand that it is very hard to acknowledge that fellow believers might not tell you the truth or that their truth is easily explained by other methods.   
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 18, 2011, 04:57:26 PM
You're just being obtuse.

Ad hominem.

To imply that one cannot be objective and correct in pointing out errors in interpretation is in many ways an ignorant cop out.

Strawman. Not what I said. I did not say that one cannot be objective. I said that without actual objective evidence of what the author meant, it is wrong in any sort literary interpretation to claim that only yours is correct. You have no means of knowing the authors intentions. You don't even know who the authors are or when they were written with certainty.

See, I notice that you refrained from responding to my question about your bible quotes. What about the people who interpret what the bible says about Jesus being the Son of God differently from you? They can quote verses too, they can interpret things as well. Where is your objective proof that their interpretation is wrong?

I assume you ignored this flaw simply because you have a lot on your mind right now. I'm certain it wasn't because you're just like every other dishonest theist that comes around who can't defend his own positions without voluntarily debasing any intellectual integrity he might have.

Right, Truthy?

The texts themselves are the means by which verification can be obtained in almost all biblical subject matter.

And since everyone interprets it differently, you need to have some means besides just what the text says to show that yours is the one that is absolutely correct. Otherwise all sides are equally right. So again, where is your evidence?

Let me be clear, in most instances the texts themselves tell the reader what the authors meant!

And are often contradicted by other texts, even when people agree on what the text says. You're still not helping your position any, Truthy. It still comes down to the only evidence you have is what you think it means.

Are you going to address this or keep slinking around the issue?

For instnce, it is claimed that the devil was once an angel named Lucifer. This claim can be dissected and debunked using the scriptures because the scriptures make no such claim. 

Agreed, however not relevant. The issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures. Not using the scriptures to provide evidence for other claims.

So basically we've got an ad hominem, a strawman, some very poor dodging (my fault, I mean an accidental omission because you were so busy), and something that has no relevance to the conversation.

Also still nothing that defends against the initial issue of you speaking for god.

I wish I could say this was a surprise,Truthy.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: hypagoga on August 18, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
A friend of mine ask me to read this article http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html) and all i could think about is Leviticus 19:18. does any one see any other flaws in this argument?

The first thing that popped into my head reading the article was Animal Farm.

Their commandments:
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

They were all summarized to "Four legs good, two legs bad", since the animals might have a hard time remembering them all.

But of course we know how these were changed to suit the pigs power and corruption:
No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

And ultimately replaced with:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
Four legs good, two legs better!

No, the god of the bible was a murdering son of a bitch, and regardless of the kill/murder/without cause bullshit, it is inescapable hypocrisy. A nice summary is here (http://www.angelfire.com/ky/nogod/deathtoll.html), with the question marks indicating large numbers of people that weren't specifically enumerated.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 18, 2011, 11:11:02 PM
missing on the list is the 60 million or more Indians in the new world.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 19, 2011, 12:17:47 PM
You're just being obtuse.

Ad hominem.

To imply that one cannot be objective and correct in pointing out errors in interpretation is in many ways an ignorant cop out.

Strawman. Not what I said. I did not say that one cannot be objective. I said that without actual objective evidence of what the author meant, it is wrong in any sort literary interpretation to claim that only yours is correct. You have no means of knowing the authors intentions. You don't even know who the authors are or when they were written with certainty.

See, I notice that you refrained from responding to my question about your bible quotes. What about the people who interpret what the bible says about Jesus being the Son of God differently from you? They can quote verses too, they can interpret things as well. Where is your objective proof that their interpretation is wrong?

I assume you ignored this flaw simply because you have a lot on your mind right now. I'm certain it wasn't because you're just like every other dishonest theist that comes around who can't defend his own positions without voluntarily debasing any intellectual integrity he might have.

Right, Truthy?

The texts themselves are the means by which verification can be obtained in almost all biblical subject matter.

And since everyone interprets it differently, you need to have some means besides just what the text says to show that yours is the one that is absolutely correct. Otherwise all sides are equally right. So again, where is your evidence?

Let me be clear, in most instances the texts themselves tell the reader what the authors meant!

And are often contradicted by other texts, even when people agree on what the text says. You're still not helping your position any, Truthy. It still comes down to the only evidence you have is what you think it means.

Are you going to address this or keep slinking around the issue?

For instnce, it is claimed that the devil was once an angel named Lucifer. This claim can be dissected and debunked using the scriptures because the scriptures make no such claim. 

Agreed, however not relevant. The issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures. Not using the scriptures to provide evidence for other claims.

So basically we've got an ad hominem, a strawman, some very poor dodging (my fault, I mean an accidental omission because you were so busy), and something that has no relevance to the conversation.

Also still nothing that defends against the initial issue of you speaking for god.

I wish I could say this was a surprise,Truthy.


The meaning of words within the immediate context in which they were written does in fact act as objective evidence about the meaning of that which the author has written. Why do you deny this?
Knowing the identity and intent of the author can be out great value in many settings, not all. Where concepts are being discussed that be be understood in multiple ways, the author's background is of paramount importance, however when the author is telling a story by recanting events, it's not so vital.
 
As far as your question about people that interpret what the Bible says about Jesus being the Son of God differently that do I I ask; What are there interpretations and how do we differ? If they were to say that Jesus is not said to be the Son of God by the scriptures, I'd call them incorrect because the scriptures blatently declare that to be the case. It is unmistakable and nothing is in need of being interpreted as it relates to Jesus being God's Son. As far as Jesus being God, the "Son" version, that idea has to be read into the scripture because such an idea is not blatantly and unmistakable present in the writings. So point a). The scriptures say Jesus is the son of God is not up for debate, it's fact, while point b.) The scriptures teach that Jesus is God, the Son is debatable because such a concept is not expressly stated and it goes against the Shema that much of scripture screams out.   
 
You stated that "the issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures." To which my response is that the correctness of the scriptures is not something disernable by interpretation, but the messages, whether correct or not, can be gleaned from the pages in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. This enables readers like you and me to take in claims about what the Bible says by people, whether those people are believers, agnostics, or atheists, and say, "yep, that's right", or call BS.
 
What you call speaking for God is no such thing, so no matter how often you repeat that errant assertion, or tell it out, it won't suddenly become true and correct. 
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Graybeard on August 19, 2011, 12:47:26 PM
If I may go back to the original question:
the site say
Quote
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder.
This is true. There are about 5 words covering methods of unnatural death in Hebrew.
Quote
Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice.
This is a deception. and in the Lying for Jesus category.
Yahweh accepts child sacrifice in the Bible, and gives an instance of where human sacrifice to another god, defeats Yahweh.

The righteous judgement spoken of cannot be justified at all. God has 42 children killed by a bear for calling a prophet "Baldy-head" How righteous is that? He has pregnant women disembowelled for happening to be of another tribe. The list goes on.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 19, 2011, 08:03:20 PM
The meaning of words within the immediate context in which they were written does in fact act as objective evidence about the meaning of that which the author has written. Why do you deny this?

Because you're wrong. This might work if you want to claim a completely literal interpretation of the bible. However that opens up a huge host of other problems for any interpretations you want to make.

Unless you're going to make the huge mistake of claiming a literal translation, then you can't hold up what's said as objective evidence. Evidence, yes, but not objective evidence. This is especially true in a book that relies so heavily on metaphor and literary device, not to mention one that makes so many fantastic claims.

For example, the bible says that prayer can move mountains. Was this a metaphor or did the author actually mean that he thought it would really happen? Just from the text it could easily go either way, especially since we're talking about a man who likely believed in all-powerful god.

To use your "son of god" bit as another example. That is a title that is actually given to a lot of things. In the OT it is used several times to refer to other people and things as well. Technically, if Christianity is true then we are all the sons/daughters of god. Most Christians though interpret this to mean that he is the literal son of god; as in he was born from god and is divine. Using the context of that passage one could take many interpretations as to the meaning of son of god.

Knowing the identity and intent of the author can be out great value in many settings, not all. Where concepts are being discussed that be be understood in multiple ways, the author's background is of paramount importance, however when the author is telling a story by recanting events, it's not so vital.

Except you know nothing about the authors. You don't even know if what you're reading has been altered or changed from the original. You know absolutely nothing about it. Even when and where it was written is rather tenuous.

So point a). The scriptures say Jesus is the son of God is not up for debate, it's fact, while point b.) The scriptures teach that Jesus is God, the Son is debatable because such a concept is not expressly stated and it goes against the Shema that much of scripture screams out.   

This is you weaseling around. When Christians say that Jesus is the Son of God, they refer to his divinity.

Yes, it does say literally that Jesus if the son of god. However your position was that reading the scriptures and taking them for their word was the way to understand their meaning. So you have told me that it says son of god (which I agree with, as irrelevant as it is). But what is the actual meaning of it. And how do you prove it? You keep avoiding this.

Does it mean that he is divine, or is it using the term like it's used in most of the OT. How do you justify which one you believe it is? You said that you use the scriptures to correct people that misrepresent their meanings. But you've avoided talking about their meanings as you've interpreted them. If you're going to stick with "it's debatable" then obviously you're not in any position to be correcting people on much of anything as your method of interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.


You stated that "the issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures." To which my response is that the correctness of the scriptures is not something disernable by interpretation, but the messages, whether correct or not, can be gleaned from the pages in the overwhelming majority of circumstances.

Except that the messages can't be gleaned in most circumstances, as I've pointed out. We have several thousand different varieties of Christianity to prove that. All of which sound the same as you. All of which claim that others are misrepresenting what the bible actually says.


What you call speaking for God is no such thing, so no matter how often you repeat that errant assertion, or tell it out, it won't suddenly become true and correct.

Correct or not, so far it's pretty much gone unopposed by you. So perhaps I do have a point?

What then do you call it? When you claim an interpretation of gods scriptures and that those who don't read it the way you do are wrong, even though you still can't prove it?

To put words into someones mouth means  to interpret what someone said so that the words mean what you want and not what the speaker wanted. Since you don't know what the speaker actually intended, aren't you doing exactly this?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 19, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
Alzy,
Quote
Yes, it does say literally that Jesus if the son of god. However your position was that reading the scriptures and taking them for their word was the way to understand their meaning. So you have told me that it says son of god (which I agree with, as irrelevant as it is). But what is the actual meaning of it. And how do you prove it? You keep avoiding this.

Does it mean that he is divine, or is it using the term like it's used in most of the OT. How do you justify which one you believe it is?

What do I believe it means you ask? Here's the answer: It means God, as opposed to any male sire, is the progenitor of Jesus, just as God was the progenitor o Adam. Therefore Jesus is God's son.
Here's the justification: Luke 3:38 where it speaks of Adam s God's so s well.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 19, 2011, 11:50:23 PM
you demand evidence from someone to prove their validity.  Why do you not require the same of that which you believe in?  What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?  Something that can't be anything else but the miracle you would demand of those others in authority.

For me to prove that what I believe is true, I, like anyone else must be able to demonstrate why. I cannot prove that the Bible that I happen to believe in is true.
What the Bible demonstrates as it relates to those who speak for God is that those individuals typically were able to exhibit miraculous signs that aided in confirming that their words were in fact given them by God. 

Your question of: "What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?" is very fair. The only thing that I can say in response and be honest in the process is that according to the writings, my God has on various occasions revealed Himself through the miraculous in the sight of men. This answer of course leads to the issue of just how much if any credence we should lend to those writers.
Why has your God been so silent for 2000 years? I can have visions,does not mean they are anything more than a vivid imagination. Geez they must be true cuz my visions tell me there is no God.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 20, 2011, 11:42:49 AM
What do I believe it means you ask? Here's the answer: It means God, as opposed to any male sire, is the progenitor of Jesus, just as God was the progenitor o Adam. Therefore Jesus is God's son.
Here's the justification: Luke 3:38 where it speaks of Adam s God's so s well.

Which neither addresses nor responds to anything. It still leaves every point I made standing. How do you know this? The verse that you quoted simply says "Son of God" again. The issue wasn't whether it says "Son of God". The issue was how, out of the many different ways of translating the phrase, you determine that yours is the right one from what the text says. The passage you quoted does not address this. You said that the only right way to do this was to read what the passages said exactly. So I'm waiting for you to demonstrate it.

Not only does this fail. But it's a very sad attempt at a dodge, Truthy. Much like most of what else you seem to say when asked to actually justify yourself.

If you were so clearly right in your interpretations (as you claim to be, especially since you feel it is your duty to correct everyone else) why is it so hard for you to defend them? Perhaps you should consider this for a bit before making another post like this.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 20, 2011, 03:04:23 PM
What do I believe it means you ask? Here's the answer: It means God, as opposed to any male sire, is the progenitor of Jesus, just as God was the progenitor o Adam. Therefore Jesus is God's son.
Here's the justification: Luke 3:38 where it speaks of Adam s God's so s well.

Which neither addresses nor responds to anything. It still leaves every point I made standing. How do you know this? The verse that you quoted simply says "Son of God" again. The issue wasn't whether it says "Son of God". The issue was how, out of the many different ways of translating the phrase, you determine that yours is the right one from what the text says. The passage you quoted does not address this. You said that the only right way to do this was to read what the passages said exactly. So I'm waiting for you to demonstrate it.

Not only does this fail. But it's a very sad attempt at a dodge, Truthy. Much like most of what else you seem to say when asked to actually justify yourself.

If you were so clearly right in your interpretations (as you claim to be, especially since you feel it is your duty to correct everyone else) why is it so hard for you to defend them? Perhaps you should consider this for a bit before making another post like this.

I guess my last reply was a bit weak and lazy.
To try to directly address your question of: "how, out of the many different ways of translating the phrase (son of God), you determine that yours is the right one from what the text says."

First, let's address what those many different ways of understanding what "the son of God" can be.
I mentioned the offspring/progenitor relationship and you mentioned that it could be a title given to a lot of things, some I'll mention below.
a). Israel (Ex 4:22; Hosea 11:1)
b). an extra terrestrial being (Genesis 6:2 ????; Job 1:6)
c). those with faith in Jesus that had become "clothed" with the Anointed One whom Jesus gave the power to be called sons of God. (Gal. 3:22-29; John 1:12-13)
d). the offspring of a progenitor (Luke 2:38)
e). the heir or inheritor of that which belongs to or is under the control of the Father (Luke 20:13-15; Gal. 3:29)

Now, based on all the examples that are given in reference to what sons of God are in the scriptures, it appears that the idea of an interpretation that this means that Jesus was born from God and therefore is divine and the same as God is foreign to all the writings and is therefore an understanding that is nonsensical based on the information readers are supplied by the scriptures on this subject.
So, what can the phrase mean or which meaning/meanings make the most sense based on the texts of scripture? C.), is the sole one on the list that doesn't fit in the case of Jesus. Any of the other 4 understandings could be correct individually and even collectively.


Unless you're going to make the huge mistake of claiming a literal translation, then you can't hold up what's said as objective evidence. Evidence, yes, but not objective evidence. This is especially true in a book that relies so heavily on metaphor and literary device, not to mention one that makes so many fantastic claims.

For example, the bible says that prayer can move mountains. Was this a metaphor or did the author actually mean that he thought it would really happen? Just from the text it could easily go either way, especially since we're talking about a man who likely believed in all-powerful god.


Ff not completely objective evidence (in all circumstances), at least strong circumstantial evidence in the other cases, right?
As far as prayer moving mountains goes, from the context of the statement it really, and I mean really looks like it is not metaphorical. No "likes" or "as" was employed. We see no analogy being used, all we have is the statement that "In solemn truth I tell you that if any one shall say to this mountain, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 20, 2011, 08:04:30 PM
so everything with like or as is NOT metaphor? but everthing else is?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: naemhni on August 21, 2011, 07:04:05 AM
so everything with like or as is NOT metaphor?

That would be correct.  A statement using "like" or "as" is not a metaphor, it is a simile.   ;)
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Graybeard on August 21, 2011, 04:52:13 PM
As far as prayer moving mountains goes, from the context of the statement it really, and I mean really looks like it is not metaphorical. No "likes" or "as" was employed. We see no analogy being used, all we have is the statement that "In solemn truth I tell you that if any one shall say to this mountain, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."
It must disturb you TOT that not one Christian in history has reached the standard of Christianity required to throw a mountain.

Do you think the entire population of Christendom has doubts in their hearts, and if you do, will those people get to heaven?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: changeling on August 22, 2011, 07:30:05 AM
I know what happened.
The original Greek transcripts said "I tell you that if any one shall say to this ROCK, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."

So it was a misstranslation of the word rock.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 23, 2011, 11:21:40 AM
As far as prayer moving mountains goes, from the context of the statement it really, and I mean really looks like it is not metaphorical. No "likes" or "as" was employed. We see no analogy being used, all we have is the statement that "In solemn truth I tell you that if any one shall say to this mountain, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."
It must disturb you TOT that not one Christian in history has reached the standard of Christianity required to throw a mountain.

Do you think the entire population of Christendom has doubts in their hearts, and if you do, will those people get to heaven?

As I have said before I do not believe the entire population of Christendom is even promised a Heavenly inheritance. The promise is LIFE, the Heaven promise was only made to a select few.
As it pertains to having enough faith to move mountains, I believe that ability was one given again, to a select group and lived nearly 2000 years ago. They were make promises that others simply were not. They were given abilities that others were not, and it is them who are said to the the ones reigning with the Anointed One, others are not.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: velkyn on August 23, 2011, 11:46:41 AM
As I have said before I do not believe the entire population of Christendom is even promised a Heavenly inheritance. The promise is LIFE, the Heaven promise was only made to a select few.
As it pertains to having enough faith to move mountains, I believe that ability was one given again, to a select group and lived nearly 2000 years ago. They were make promises that others simply were not. They were given abilities that others were not, and it is them who are said to the the ones reigning with the Anointed One, others are not.

so why are there no external accounts of them doing such things *either*?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Truth OT on August 23, 2011, 12:08:32 PM
As I have said before I do not believe the entire population of Christendom is even promised a Heavenly inheritance. The promise is LIFE, the Heaven promise was only made to a select few.
As it pertains to having enough faith to move mountains, I believe that ability was one given again, to a select group and lived nearly 2000 years ago. They were make promises that others simply were not. They were given abilities that others were not, and it is them who are said to the the ones reigning with the Anointed One, others are not.

so why are there no external accounts of them doing such things *either*?

Good question. I really don't know the answer. Maybe the stories of the saints abilities were fabrications. Maybe they were simply spread by oral repetition. Maybe the tumultous events, the wars, and the overall volitility that engulfed mid to late 1st century Palestine is the reason other accounts of the miraculous no longer exist. Perhaps there are other accounts that have yet to be uncovered.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: velkyn on August 23, 2011, 12:37:45 PM
Good question. I really don't know the answer. Maybe the stories of the saints abilities were fabrications. Maybe they were simply spread by oral repetition. Maybe the tumultous events, the wars, and the overall volitility that engulfed mid to late 1st century Palestine is the reason other accounts of the miraculous no longer exist. Perhaps there are other accounts that have yet to be uncovered.
TOT, you are reaching here. You got it in one but had to give other possibilities which get progressively more improbable.  You are expecting me to consider that only these certain stories are mysteriously missing because of  no one bothered to write them down or that it was too chaotic for anyone to have written them down or that we haven’t found them yet.  How many years shall we keep searching?  And since we have lots of “gospels” written in the first century, it’s rather bizarre that no one bothered with the stories of disciples themselves, even while starting the whole set of myths that they wrote the first four “gospels”. 
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 26, 2011, 02:01:59 AM
Good question. I really don't know the answer. Maybe the stories of the saints abilities were fabrications. Maybe they were simply spread by oral repetition. Maybe the tumultous events, the wars, and the overall volitility that engulfed mid to late 1st century Palestine is the reason other accounts of the miraculous no longer exist. Perhaps there are other accounts that have yet to be uncovered.
TOT, you are reaching here. You got it in one but had to give other possibilities which get progressively more improbable.  You are expecting me to consider that only these certain stories are mysteriously missing because of  no one bothered to write them down or that it was too chaotic for anyone to have written them down or that we haven’t found them yet.  How many years shall we keep searching?  And since we have lots of “gospels” written in the first century, it’s rather bizarre that no one bothered with the stories of disciples themselves, even while starting the whole set of myths that they wrote the first four “gospels”.
not to mention the ommited parts of the bible
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Alzael on August 26, 2011, 06:24:31 PM

I guess my last reply was a bit weak and lazy.
[/quote]

So far, every reply has been rather weak and lazy, when you even made a response that addressed what was being said. Hence the criticism and dismissiveness.

To try to directly address your question of: "how, out of the many different ways of translating the phrase (son of God), you determine that yours is the right one from what the text says."

First, let's address what those many different ways of understanding what "the son of God" can be.
I mentioned the offspring/progenitor relationship and you mentioned that it could be a title given to a lot of things, some I'll mention below.
a). Israel (Ex 4:22; Hosea 11:1)
b). an extra terrestrial being (Genesis 6:2 ????; Job 1:6)
c). those with faith in Jesus that had become "clothed" with the Anointed One whom Jesus gave the power to be called sons of God. (Gal. 3:22-29; John 1:12-13)
d). the offspring of a progenitor (Luke 2:38)
e). the heir or inheritor of that which belongs to or is under the control of the Father (Luke 20:13-15; Gal. 3:29)

Now, based on all the examples that are given in reference to what sons of God are in the scriptures, it appears that the idea of an interpretation that this means that Jesus was born from God and therefore is divine and the same as God is foreign to all the writings and is therefore an understanding that is nonsensical based on the information readers are supplied by the scriptures on this subject.
So, what can the phrase mean or which meaning/meanings make the most sense based on the texts of scripture? C.), is the sole one on the list that doesn't fit in the case of Jesus. Any of the other 4 understandings could be correct individually and even collectively.

You still fail at justifying your ideas. Since the term "Son of God" is used in such a varied manner you can't just shrug your shoulders and try to take this route. You might have some ground to stand on if the terms were used more consistently throughout, but they aren't. Your list of meanings go from "Israel" to "an extra-terrestrial" being. You can't rule out "Divine child of God" just because it's not used that way before when it's already been used in five entirely different ways. Especially when the interpretation of divinity is an equally sensible one.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that being the offspring of god could be a claim of divinity. So far your reasoning as to why the scripture doesn't support it is as arbitrary as the scripture itself.

So, what can the phrase mean or which meaning/meanings make the most sense based on the texts of scripture? C.), is the sole one on the list that doesn't fit in the case of Jesus. Any of the other 4 understandings could be correct individually and even collectively.

Which does still leaves the question of how you know that the interpretation that you reach is correct. You said that this was the way to understand the meaning. So far, even if I accept your ridiculous methodology, you've at best reduced he possible meanings to a choice of 4. This assumes that the author did not mean something else besides the ways in which the other authors used it.

So you still fail.

Truthy, I realize that it probably took you some time to do all of that and write it out. But that doesn't make the answer any less lazy. You have to actually put thought into it, real thought.

Ff not completely objective evidence (in all circumstances), at least strong circumstantial evidence in the other cases, right?

Not in the least. Even if you treat such a thing as evidence, one piece of circumstantial evidence is never strong. Circumstantial evidence requires one to make an inferrence to connect it to a fact, but does not constitute a conclusion or a fact on it's own. We've already established that what you're saying is an inferrence (ie. a guess). It does not rule out other possibilities, it merely might help one to support the actual, objective evidence. Or if you can gather enough of it you might be able to form some corroborating evidence.

But by no stretch of the imagination can just reading the text be considered strong evidence of anything other than evidence of what the writer actually put down on paper. What was meant by those words is an entirely different matter.
Meaning is subjective.


As far as prayer moving mountains goes, from the context of the statement it really, and I mean really looks like it is not metaphorical. No "likes" or "as" was employed. We see no analogy being used, all we have is the statement that "In solemn truth I tell you that if any one shall say to this mountain, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."

This does not actually address the intent so I'll rephrase it.

Did the author mean what he said literally. Did he really believe that such a thing was possible or was he using some form of artistic licence? Did he really believe what he wrote, or was he just a fiction author trying to tell a good story about god. What is the meaning and how do you know?

Not how do you arbitrarily decide what it means. How do you actually know?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: tschmidt on August 29, 2011, 10:14:28 PM
Hi, I'm new here, but I read the article the OP was asking about, and I just have to say that I am *appalled* by the moral position of the author.  I couldn't get past the third paragraph labeled "The Flood" without feeling compelled to post a reply.  "All people had become corrupted"?  Really?  Even one-day-old babies?  Even the mentally retarded, the catatonic, and those in an injury-induced coma?  They were corrupted too? 

Now, I suppose the theist might argue that all men (and women) were corrupted as a result of original sin, but it's my understanding that the flood happened some time after the Fall.  So that means some people lived long and perfectly uneventful lives in-between Adam & Eve's original sin and the time of the flood.  Were they somehow more blameless than those poor babies whose lives were extinguished the day the flood began when they were merely infants?  How is it that those babies were "corrupted" more so than the people that came before them that they should be murdered by god?  How can anyone justify this as the act of a loving and merciful god?

The very next sentence says that "all people were continually plotting evil".  Well how can a baby plot evil?  And even if a baby was "plotting evil" how could it act on its plans?  Babies cannot walk.  I cannot believe anyone would subscribe to such a heinous belief.  Whoever wrote that article justifying the killing of babies is worse than a pedophile in my book.  At least children who have been molested have a chance at a decent life in the future if they recover from the emotional scars.  What chance did those poor babies that god killed have?

Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: velkyn on August 30, 2011, 07:56:41 AM
welcome, tschmidt.  You've hit the nail on the head in your post.  The oft-held idea that "everyone" deserves to die horribly is part and parcel of most Christian belief, though they often run away from it when confronted by its sadism.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Graybeard on September 02, 2011, 04:21:43 PM
Hi, I'm new here, but I read the article the OP was asking about, and I just have to say that I am *appalled* by the moral position of the author.  I couldn't get past the third paragraph labeled "The Flood" without feeling compelled to post a reply.  "All people had become corrupted"?  Really?  Even one-day-old babies?  Even the mentally retarded, the catatonic, and those in an injury-induced coma?  They were corrupted too? 
I'm surprised you ask. How many of those you mentioned could have accepted Jesus and/or worshipped Yahweh? - Answer, none of them.

So let us then consider:

2 Chronicles 15:13 Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

2 Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

You seem to think they are innocent:- They are not. They are defiant and spit in God's Face. Don't fret over these worthless pieces of dross - God and Jesus have got it all sown up.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on September 05, 2011, 09:01:48 PM
Hi, I'm new here, but I read the article the OP was asking about, and I just have to say that I am *appalled* by the moral position of the author.  I couldn't get past the third paragraph labeled "The Flood" without feeling compelled to post a reply.  "All people had become corrupted"?  Really?  Even one-day-old babies?  Even the mentally retarded, the catatonic, and those in an injury-induced coma?  They were corrupted too? 
I'm surprised you ask. How many of those you mentioned could have accepted Jesus and/or worshipped Yahweh? - Answer, none of them.

So let us then consider:

2 Chronicles 15:13 Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

2 Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

You seem to think they are innocent:- They are not. They are defiant and spit in God's Face. Don't fret over these worthless pieces of dross - God and Jesus have got it all sown up.

I think it is funny when one compares the christian religion to the muslin and say are the muslin just more devote to there GoD then you christian because they actually do what there bible say and kill the non-believers.
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Backspace on September 10, 2011, 08:05:26 PM
Well how can a baby plot evil?  And even if a baby was "plotting evil" how could it act on its plans?  Babies cannot walk.  I cannot believe anyone would subscribe to such a heinous belief. 

Oh ye of little faith...

Genesis 38:7, "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him."
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: changeling on September 11, 2011, 06:20:57 AM
Well how can a baby plot evil?  And even if a baby was "plotting evil" how could it act on its plans?  Babies cannot walk.  I cannot believe anyone would subscribe to such a heinous belief. 

Oh ye of little faith...

Genesis 38:7, "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him."

But Er was not a baby. Er was already grown and married to Tamar before God killed him before she could have a baby.
Then his brother Onan screwed Tamar but pulled out before finishing the job and that pissed God off, so God killed Onan too.

But not to worry. Er's father Judah screwed Tamar too and she finally had a kid.

Aren't bible stories wholesome family reading?
Title: Re: Thou shall not kill?
Post by: Backspace on September 12, 2011, 02:42:08 PM
But Er was not a baby. Er was already grown and married to Tamar before God killed him before she could have a baby.

Oops - forgot Er was grown and married before Yahweh snuffed him.

How about Psalms 137:9: Happy shall he be, that take and dash thy little ones against stones.