I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 458
#361
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
So you have never contemplated those awkward stories above and contradictory verses above  then.  I should have known better than to expect you to take them on,
If it bothers you that I won't play your never ending musical chairs, you will be bothered a lot.

I've beaten you on every lame thread you've brought up, so much so that you start cursing, and crying for me to leave your thread. You somehow get a kick from posting "contradictions", I have no such disorder.

Settle one topic before you ooze to another. Otherwise, play your games with someone who is interested in musical chairs.
#362
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, that wasn't my claim, what I did was claim that it wasn't out of character for god to command someone to kill someone.
So something that never happened in 6,000 years of God's dealing with humanity, and which is a logical impossibility, was a characteristic of God? My bible tells me that a non christian cannot know God because the nature of God is understood by the spirit.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Lol. OK.
#363
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why not just tell him that he's the one to be sacrificed?

Don't know, but if I had to speculate, in the real world I'd say it's because a kid Isaac's age could outrun a man Abraham's age.  The way you are reading it, the whole thing makes LESS sense to me: If god knew he wasn't going t let Abraham kill Isaac, and Abraham knew god wasn't going to let him kill Isaac, what exactly is the test about?  BEcause you said this:

It's pretty clear from the text that Abraham viewed the test as a cultural necessity meant to prove his allegiance to the God he believed in.
So if neither Abraha nor Isaac expected this whole affair to end up with a dead kid, then no one is actually proving anything to anyone, because there's no stakes on either side. 
Topic's author
#364
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
So you're denying the fact that god commanded the destruction of several communities?
#365
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

Why not just tell him that he's the one to be sacrificed?

Don't know, but if I had to speculate, in the real world I'd say it's because a kid Isaac's age could outrun a man Abraham's age.  The way you are reading it, the whole thing makes LESS sense to me: If god knew he wasn't going t let Abraham kill Isaac, and Abraham knew god wasn't going to

let him kill Isaac, what exactly is the test about?  BEcause you said this:

It's pretty clear from the text that Abraham viewed the test as a cultural necessity meant to prove his allegiance to the God he believed in.
So if neither Abraha nor Isaac expected this whole affair to end up with a dead kid, then no one is actually proving anything to anyone, because there's no stakes on either side. 
Let's look at God's proclamation of faith concerning Abraham.

Hebrews 11:8-19


New International Version




8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[a] considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

As you can see, a lot of what Abraham was commended for was his faith concerning God's promise of a future national off-spring through Isaac. Not faith in allowing his one and only son to die.

And of course if God didn't intervene there would have been no choice but to kill Isaac.
#366
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you're denying the fact that god commanded the destruction of several communities?
If it is a fact, why are you having trouble pointing one of these facts out? Are bibles outlawed where you live? Is your information hearsay and 2nd hand?

I don't really care about your bias. I don't really care what you think of the bible or Christianity. But I do like those topics. So if you wish to debate them, I will do so on facts and not your pop-christian knowledge.

Another question. Obama sent soldiers to war. Do you think he is guilty of murder? If you are one of those atheists who thinks only the theist are to answer questions, then have a pleasant day.

I like your user name BTW. Thought provoking.
#367
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you're denying the fact that god commanded the destruction of several communities?
I'm curious as to what exactly your argument is. The commandments to kill people seem to argue about always seem to focus on texts referring to war. Soldiers have always been commanded to kill. So under that guideline, the distinction is very clear between killing and murder. And the nations that God commanded to have killed were out to completely to destroy Israel.

Usually these types of arguments lead to questioning why God allowed an environment where atrocities can happen. And of course that's a different argument.

But, I think you understand the distinction.
#368
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
All that's well and good, but the point is the text shows god asking someone to kill someone else. What happens after that is a different discussion.  The text is the text.  THe story in Genesis is clear.  

#369
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
All that's well and good, but the point is the text shows god asking someone to kill someone else. What happens after that is a different discussion.  The text is the text.  THe story in Genesis is clear. 
Just to be clear, do you think the text suggests God's intention was for Isaac to be killed?

As per:

"So if neither Abraha nor Isaac expected this whole affair to end up with a dead kid, then no one is actually proving anything to anyone, because there's no stakes on either side."


#370
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
So you have never contemplated those awkward stories above and contradictory verses above  then.  I should have known better than to expect you to take them on,
If it bothers you that I won't play your never ending musical chairs, you will be bothered a lot.

It was you that come onto my own thread. I didn't invite you and this thread isn't yours.  I can take it then that you will not be engaging me any more. 

#371
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
All I'm saying is what the text actually says, in the verse, is god telling a guy to kill his son.  It's very plain: take you son to the top of that mountain and offer him as a burnt sacrifice. This part of the story is completely unambiguous. There's plenty of weirdness in the whys of this story and their implications, but we're far afield of the topic at hand. 

#372
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
It was you that come onto my own thread.
This isn't your thread.

I didn't invite you and this thread isn't yours.
I didn't say it was. Your invite doesn't make me have to come, just as your request for me to leave doesn't make me have to leave.

I can take it then that you will not be engaging me any more. 
I will post anywhere I want at any time I want till the mods show me that its a coc violation. I suggest you do the same.
#373
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
All I'm saying is what the text actually says, in the verse, is god telling a guy to kill his son.  It's very plain: take you son to the top of that mountain and offer him as a burnt sacrifice. This part of the story is completely unambiguous. There's plenty of weirdness in the whys of this story and their implications, but we're far afield of the topic at hand. 
The topic seems to be about murder. Do you see this as God requesting that Abraham murder his son?


noun: murder; plural noun: murders
  1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

#374
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
The topic seems to be about murder. Do you see this as God requesting that Abraham murder his son?
All I'm saying is god asked one human to kill another human in this story. It's not a legal argument. It's reading. 
#375
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am Gay - though I am specifically pansexual - I still trend towards being attracted to men - and your god told you to murder me (like the doctrine of the bible does) would you murder me? 

I would probably assume that I was insane, since it is against Christian morals to kill people for no reason (thou shalt not murder and all of that)
#376
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Then maybe I'm not clear on what you're arguing.

My assumption is that it revolves around people saying God never commands anyone to be killed. The obvious exception of course is capital punishment, and war. And the latter two of course is not what they're talking about.

If you're going by a technicality, then some cheerleaders write on their signs "Kill Mt. Union High School". 

You indicated that much of the texts is weird, so obviously you don't understand some of it. Not to feel bad because scholars differ in opinion on various meanings. The best thing to do is focus on the direct message itself which is the faith of Abraham. That we do know. Trying to side track the main focus to something difficult to understand is not a wise move.

But for fun, let's say God allowed the sacrifice (the term God used instead of "kill"), and there was no pain in the process.....and no death? In other words, God miraculously caused the actual stabbing to be of no effect.

Would that still be "killing"?




Topic's author
#377
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Fair enough, I'll chalk it up to different interpretations of which is more important.
#378
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don’t know, we’re told to “hate the sin, not the sinner”.

Worst you could expect from us is to not hire you to teach religion classes or something.

Some religions like Islam, at least the more radical sects, might kill you even without God telling them to. Precisely why intersectionality confuses me.
#379
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@SirAnonymous
I agree. Humans are definitely capable of being wrong, even when they are being honest. They are also capable of misinterpreting what they see. What makes the Bible different is that God was inspiring the Biblical writers. He ensured that what they wrote would be accurate.
Wasn't the new testament basically God correcting the Bible? 

Telephone and text are different. If I have 25 people copy something in text, it will turn out more accurate than if those same people communicated it verbally. It definitely won't be perfect, but it will still be better.
Just add centuries of people doing it and using their own verbiage, and you end up with over 20 versions of the Bible as is.

Actually, it only has to go through one translation from copies that were only passed down a few hundred years. That's the advantage of having copies in the original languages that are relatively early. Now, that still sounds bad, but that's where science comes into it. The Bible isn't the only ancient book that's survived. Scholars can look at all the different copies and see what they have in common. If 50 copies say X and only 3 copies say Y, the 50 are probably correct, all else being equal. However, if those 50 copies are all from the same place and time, but the 3 copies are from different places from earlier times, the 3 copies would be preferred because the 50 likely share the same error. It gets pretty involved. The point is that the more copies you have from many different places as close to the time of the original writing as possible, the better. In that respect, the Bible is far and away the most reliable ancient document. To put that in numbers, the NT has 20,000 usable copies (most don't have the whole thing) and the OT 5000 (iirc). The next best is Homer's Iliad at 600. In short, if we can't trust the copies of the Bible we have today to be accurate to the originals, then we may as well toss the entirety of ancient literature.
The difference between the bible and every other piece of ancient literature is how much we treat the information in all literature as fact. Information on politics, social structures, mythology, etc is preserved because it's history. We can learn from it, but we also understand the literature is written by humans, and scholars don't take every piece of information as fact the way Christians do with the Bible. You can cross apply that to basically any religion that regards ancient texts the same way. 

There's a fundamental difference between that book and the Bible: the Bible claims to be true, whereas that book claims to be fiction. Now, claiming to be true isn't evidence that it is true; however, if something admits to being false, then we can eliminate it without a second thought (unless you're Snopes fact-checking the Babylon Bee). If it claims to be true, then we have to analyze whether it is true (which is a whole other, much longer discussion).
I had expected this argument; So it claims to be true and you believe it to be true. I don't know why you specifically believe it to be true, but from my talks with other Christians I've heard argument like how certain things have been found that are historically accurate in the Bible, as well evidence of other events happening, etc. Because some of the major events may have happened doesn't mean the stuff involving magic and god demontrating his powers is correct though. Finding some truth in something =/= everything being true. You can use this logic with any conspiracy theory; You take a few things that happened, seemed wierd and don't make sense, and then form a grand conclusion from it. It's why Alex Jones is so popular despite making pretty out there claims. You take a little bit of truth and make a grand conclusion from it.

Alien conspiracies are the same for me; There is a lot of evidence to suggest intelligent life, but nothing so concrete and solid. People's who supposedly have no idea of who each other are can collaberate stories on finding and seeing technology that exceeds human technological standards near area 51, and near california. Bob Lazar's stories also match up with these stories. Does this mean aliens exist? I am sure you would say no. I also would say that. 

I've heard christians make the argument that the bible predicted we would one day have helicopters because of a passage that mentions the coming of loud locust like machines. I have a hard time taking arguments like that completely seriously for the same reasons I do Lochness, or Bigfoot, or aliens.

Because I am taking the Word of God instead. I'm not trying to be snarky with that, but that's why. I have something that I'm sure is God's Word. If something were to look and feel like God, but said things that contradicted what I know God has said, then I know it's not really God.
It's a human interpretation of God's word, not actual God's word though. It's why many religions also find themselves changing belief structures towards race, and sexual preference as society progresses. "Oh maybe we just mis-understood what this passage meant, I guess this is okay now". If God's written word were so omnipotent and important, you'd think he's be a bit more transparent, seeing as many religious attrocities are often commited in the name of what people think God's word is.

I can't fathom then, how someone would ignore a God hypothetically proving himself to exist, and then correcting the things in said Bible.
#380
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
It means the standard one uses to judge claims on a moral basis, isn't necessarily dependent on whether or not they are connected to morality.

The fact is - any morality that comes from/ is based on an agent is subjective - whereas things that aren't contingent on a mind are objective.

You can make an objective claim that raping humans hurt humans and that pedophilia does the precise same thing.

The only thing there is saying we should value human's well-being (I'm using the word to colloquially mean the physical and psychological state of a person),

and considering we are humans, well you know, we ought to value what we are. 
We are humans.  I agree with that. In other words we are not animals.  Rape was not an offence in Communist Russia. Did you know that? The reason why it was not an offence was because Communist Russia did not believe in private property rights.  Rape is a violation of private property rights.  

Rape hurts people and so does pedophilia. But is it always immoral to hurt people? For instance, locking someone up in prison is hurtful. Fining someone for speeding is hurtful. Calling someone a homophobe is hurtful.  Personally, I find the notion of attempting to use "hurting people" as a standard for immorality is flawed. I don't think we should go out of our way to hurt people - but sometimes it is necessary and sometimes it is in the best interest of the person and the community. Sometimes it is the only way they will become better people. 

The fact is - any morality that comes from/ is based on an agent is subjective - whereas things that aren't contingent on a mind are objective.

I don't understand. Please make it simple. Examples - illustrations.  State, restate, explain, illustrate, state again.  Or point, reason, example, point. 

Why should humans value human? This is entirely inconsistent with evolution.  The Survival of the Fittest - means - look out for no.1. The only value in looking out for someone else is in the benefit it brings you. Otherwise, there is no value in the other person, not intrinsically. 
#381
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
But God didn't say to kill all the hommos he just said that we cant do some things with them.
#382
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Utanity
But God didn't say to kill all the hommos he just said that we cant do some things with them.
????


#383
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Conway
Just in case no one has taken the time to tell you this...

That's an odd question.

Christians don't believe in "gay". 

They don't care.
I think that is presumptious on so many levels - and in particular to many gays who are Christian themselves
That reflects more upon yourself than God.  

Christians believe in God.
Christians do believe in God. That should go without saying.  And if "believe" is the point you are making - then perhaps there is more to it that I gave you credit for. I don't believe in Gays either. I am not sure that I would say I did not care.  Yet, me saying I don't believe in gays, is not the same as saying I believe in God. 

I happen to believe that gays exist.   Yet I don't believe in gays any more than I believe in the Prime minister. 
#384
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
Wasn't the new testament basically God correcting the Bible?
No.
Just add centuries of people doing it and using their own verbiage, and you end up with over 20 versions of the Bible as is.
Not really. Even the copies of the Bible that were made hundreds of years and thousands of miles apart are still overwhelmingly similar.
The difference between the bible and every other piece of ancient literature is how much we treat the information in all literature as fact. Information on politics, social structures, mythology, etc is preserved because it's history. We can learn from it, but we also understand the literature is written by humans, and scholars don't take every piece of information as fact the way Christians do with the Bible. You can cross apply that to basically any religion that regards ancient texts the same way. 
I don't think I disagree with this. The point I was making was simply that the Bible was passed down accurately.
So it claims to be true and you believe it to be true.
Both those statements are true, but I don't believe it is true simply because it claims to be true. I've seen Christians make that argument. It's utterly cringeworthy.
I don't know why you specifically believe it to be true, but from my talks with other Christians I've heard argument like how certain things have been found that are historically accurate in the Bible, as well evidence of other events happening, etc. Because some of the major events may have happened doesn't mean the stuff involving magic and god demontrating his powers is correct though. Finding some truth in something =/= everything being true. You can use this logic with any conspiracy theory; You take a few things that happened, seemed wierd and don't make sense, and then form a grand conclusion from it. It's why Alex Jones is so popular despite making pretty out there claims. You take a little bit of truth and make a grand conclusion from it.

Alien conspiracies are the same for me; There is a lot of evidence to suggest intelligent life, but nothing so concrete and solid. People's who supposedly have no idea of who each other are can collaberate stories on finding and seeing technology that exceeds human technological standards near area 51, and near california. Bob Lazar's stories also match up with these stories. Does this mean aliens exist? I am sure you would say no. I also would say that. 
Agreed. You can't prove that something is entirely true by saying that these parts over here have been proven to be true. While that is definitely a good sign compared to the opposite scenario where those parts are false, you still can't say that something is completely true simply because we've proven it's partly true.
I've heard christians make the argument that the bible predicted we would one day have helicopters because of a passage that mentions the coming of loud locust like machines. I have a hard time taking arguments like that completely seriously for the same reasons I do Lochness, or Bigfoot, or aliens.
For good reason. To support the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, and aliens, you have to squint really hard at some low-quality pictures. To support the helicopter claim, you have to squint really hard at a verse from Revelation.
It's a human interpretation of God's word, not actual God's word though.
I think the originals were God's actual Word and that we can be confident that what we have to day is very close to those originals. However, the human interpretation of it can definitely be flawed.
It's why many religions also find themselves changing belief structures towards race, and sexual preference as society progresses. "Oh maybe we just mis-understood what this passage meant, I guess this is okay now".
Religions and people in them are subject to and influenced by society. However, their religious texts still say what they say. Interpretation doesn't change that. That's true of any written text. People can interpret text however they like, but it will still say what it says.
If God's written word were so omnipotent and important, you'd think he's be a bit more transparent, seeing as many religious attrocities are often commited in the name of what people think God's word is.
I think "Thou shalt not murder" is pretty transparent. Still, I don't deny that a great many atrocities have been committed in God's name. But think about this: suppose someone were to kidnap a bunch of Muslims and point guns to their heads, threatening to shoot unless they denounce Islam. Suppose this person said he was doing so in the name of Mohammed. Does that mean Mohammed would approve of his actions simply because they were done in his name? Of course not. No matter how the person interpreted the Koran that Mohammed wrote (well, dictated), it wouldn't change the fact that the Koran doesn't endorse forcing people to abandon Islam under pain of death. The same is true of God and the Bible.
I can't fathom then, how someone would ignore a God hypothetically proving himself to exist, and then correcting the things in said Bible.
I don't think you mentioned the proof earlier. If there was undeniable proof that the voice talking to me was God, and the voice told me that some things in the Bible were wrong, I might believe it. Or I might go into a mental crisis because everything I believe just got flushed down the toilet and the rug was pulled out from under my feet. But without undeniable proof, I wouldn't believe it. 

It would also depend on what the voice was saying. If it could prove it was God and it told me that there were some errors in the Bible, I'd believe it. But if it could prove it was God and it told me to murder someone, I honestly don't think I would respond rationally at that point. I'd probably deny it in spite of what my mind told me. I don't even want to contemplate what would happen if I did respond rationally. But as I told theweakeredge, I don't think that scenario is actually possible.

Topic's author
#385
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
You don't understand evolution if you think that, also I have made an entire topic talking about this. If i respond to all this, it will be on that thread, so just keep a look out in your notifs for that thread. Its called Moral Subjectivism AMA or something like that.
#386
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@SirAnonymous
Wasn't the new testament basically God correcting the Bible?
No.

Christian theologians agree that the New Testament has a single and consistent theological focus on the salvific nature of Christ, but the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament consists of several different theologies. Some of these complement each other, while others are contradictory, even within the same book

Just add centuries of people doing it and using their own verbiage, and you end up with over 20 versions of the Bible as is.
Not really. Even the copies of the Bible that were made hundreds of years and thousands of miles apart are still overwhelmingly similar.
Similar, yeah that's a scary word to devote beliefs behind lol.

I don't think I disagree with this. The point I was making was simply that the Bible was passed down accurately.

A big part of the argument I am making is also to point out how silly it is to take written text by humans seriously over the word of an actual  god, so I feel like the argument was relevent. 

For good reason. To support the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, and aliens, you have to squint really hard at some low-quality pictures. To support the helicopter claim, you have to squint really hard at a verse from Revelation.
Or you have to believe a story in a book, versus hundreds of stories of people claiming to see the same thing. Either way, they are unprovable stories. At least Nessie's got some probably well edited video footage going for him.

It's a human interpretation of God's word, not actual God's word though.
I think the originals were God's actual Word and that we can be confident that what we have to day is very close to those originals. However, the human interpretation of it can definitely be flawed.
Or humans copying down what they say God said. I literally meant human interpretation in this case. The bible as a whole makes no claim for divine authorship lol

Religions and people in them are subject to and influenced by society. However, their religious texts still say what they say. Interpretation doesn't change that. That's true of any written text. People can interpret text however they like, but it will still say what it says.
My point is that with over 4000 different interpretation of what it says out there, God definitely chose to be as vague and open to interpretation as possible for some reason. Interesting something so divine couldn't be a little clearer or decide to elaborate literally at any point, to prevent his devout followers from sinning in an attempt to please him.

No matter how the person interpreted the Koran that Mohammed wrote (well, dictated), it wouldn't change the fact that the Koran doesn't endorse forcing people to abandon Islam under pain of death. The same is true of God and the Bible.
What I said above applies here also. Why is it more likely this vague, open-to-interpretation book is telling the truth about morals more than the quran? If people are committing so many attrocities in the name of it, the book might bear some responsibility. Now you could spin that and say "Stephen King doesn't bear responsibility for the school shooting inspired by his book 'Rage' though" but King can answer for himself, and has. He even removed the book from publication afterwards, even though he agrees that responsibility for interpretation lies on the doer. Like King. God can come out and clarify at any point what his intentions were assuming he's not dead, and actually exists. That he would allow people to carry these deeds out in his name suggests he supports it, or more likely, doesn't even exist. Actually that's not fair to non-christian theists, but it very much demonstrates that the Christian God is less likely to exist.

I don't think you mentioned the proof earlier. If there was undeniable proof that the voice talking to me was God, and the voice told me that some things in the Bible were wrong, I might believe it. 
I guess I assumed that by seeing and hearing God, you would have proof, and you weren't just a meth head thinking it was your dealer who is God or something lol

Or I might go into a mental crisis because everything I believe just got flushed down the toilet and the rug was pulled out from under my feet. 
I was lucky to get out of it at a young age, but my dad was 50 when he left the mormon church, and he felt this way for a while. Imagine spending all those years paying the church 10% of all your income in taxes, just to finally come to the conclusion it's all balogne? But he got over it just fine. I am sure most people would be a bit surprised to have their life long beliefs contradicted, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

It would also depend on what the voice was saying. If it could prove it was God and it told me that there were some errors in the Bible, I'd believe it. But if it could prove it was God and it told me to murder someone, I honestly don't think I would respond rationally at that point.
I am sure Abraham felt the same way when God commanded him to kill Isaac. God must have been the original creator of "Punk'd" before Ashton Kutcher took over lol.

 I'd probably deny it in spite of what my mind told me. I don't even want to contemplate what would happen if I did respond rationally. But as I told theweakeredge, I don't think that scenario is actually possible.
Yeah, God probably wouldn't actually show up. Not because he isn't able to, if he is omnipotent he could do it right now. It's more likely because he doesn't actually exist unfortunately.
#387
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Yeah, God probably wouldn't actually show up. Not because he isn't able to, if he is omnipotent he could do it right now. It's more likely because he doesn't actually exist unfortunately.
It never fails to amaze me that atheists think God should/would "show up" if He actually existed. Why they think this has never been explained to me.

Amazing also is that they seem not to be able to conceive of any reason why God would not "show up". Really?

The consistency and persistency of these irrational beliefs fascinate me.
#388
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5


It was you that come onto my own thread.
This isn't your thread.

 I know. And I haven't said it is. I said it wasn't yours. Keep up sunshine.


I didn't invite you and this thread isn't yours.
I didn't say it was. Your invite doesn't make me have to come, just as your request for me to leave doesn't make me have to leave.

I know. I said I DIDNT invite onto my thread but come to my thread you did. You have just got so excited about being back that you have already forgot where and when you have posted and on whose threads you have been making yourself look silly on... already.


I can take it then that you will not be engaging me any more. 
I will post anywhere I want at any time I want till the mods show me that its a coc violation. I suggest you do the same.

 Well that was a quick change of heart and mind wasn't it. 

#389
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
But for fun, let's say God allowed the sacrifice (the term God used instead of "kill"), and there was no pain in the process.....and no death? In other words, God miraculously caused the actual stabbing to be of no effect.

Would that still be "killing"?

If it doesn't result in death,  it wouldn't seem so.  

Then maybe I'm not clear on what you're arguing.

Very simply that god did in fact order humans to kill humans in the bible. It's in there. You can say it says "sacrifice," not "kill," but you point out that human sacrifice was a custom of the day and it involved killing whatever the sacrifice subject was, AND he asked him for a burnt offering, which were also always dead. Abraham was under the impression he was going to kill his son at god's command. It's very, very plain.  It's not a technicality, it's just what the text says. In writing. 

The best thing to do is focus on the direct message itself which is the faith of Abraham. That we do know. 
Exactly, and that's what's weird about it. 

Trying to side track the main focus to something difficult to understand is not a wise move.
I'm not saying the focus of the Abraham tale is god telling a guy to kill his son. I'm saying THAT IS IN THE STORY.  Nothing more than that. There's far more meat on the bone of that tale than there is question about what exactly Abraham left his hut with his kid intending to do.  The story itself is not at all mysterious, and if I said I don't understand the story, I mis-spoke: I don't understand how Christians INTERPRET the story. The meaning you get from it doesn't make sense. Do a topic on it and we can discuss if you like, I'd enjoy that. 
#390
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

If it doesn't result in death,  it wouldn't seem so.  
This seems to be key to the conversation.

Abraham, according to Hebrews did not believe the sacrifice would result in death.

 I think Ethan emphasized Isaac not being killed a few times. It was still considered a sacrifice of obedience, and the knife wasn't even plunged in.


Very simply that god did in fact order humans to kill humans in the bible. It's in there. You can say it says "sacrifice," not "kill," but you point out that human sacrifice was a custom of the day and it involved killing whatever the sacrifice subject was, AND he asked him for a burnt offering, which were also always dead. Abraham was under the impression he was going to kill his son at god's command. It's very, very plain.  It's not a technicality, it's just what the text says. In writing. 
This brings up another question. Are you saying the author is implying that Abraham was under the impression he was going to kill his son at God's command as a fictional character? In other words, since the author didn't mention in this chapter that Abraham was anticipating a deliverance for Isaac, then that's how we should take it if it's fiction?



Daniel 3:17 ►


If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty's hand.


The purpose for throwing one into a blazing furnace was to kill them. I don't see any reason to suspect that Abraham was expecting to kill his son anymore than Daniel was sure he would be killed.

The best thing to do is focus on the direct message itself which is the faith of Abraham. That we do know. 
Exactly, and that's what's weird about it. 

Weird as unusual?


I'm not saying the focus of the Abraham tale is god telling a guy to kill his son. I'm saying THAT IS IN THE STORY.  Nothing more than that. There's far more meat on the bone of that tale than there is question about what exactly Abraham left his hut with his kid intending to do.  The story itself is not at all mysterious, and if I said I don't understand the story, I mis-spoke:
I don't understand how Christians INTERPRET the story. The meaning you get from it doesn't make sense. Do a topic on it and we can discuss if you like, I'd enjoy that. 
Would you agree that whether or not this was fact or fiction plays a big role?

If it's it's a fictional story, then we can't really assume more than what's written. If it's a fact, then we're not going to really know everything as far as what the main historical figure was thinking.

According to Hebrews, Abraham's focus was on Isaac being resurrected if in fact he had to plunge in the knife and kill him.

Hebrews 11:19, NIV: "Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death." ... Hebrews 11:19