read this, then please tell me do you still believe that god exist ?

Author: Lunar108
Religion

Posts

Total: 97
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
What is perfection? 

Can we or anyone, or anything for that matter, ever be perfect  Reverend "Tradey"?
Great question Stephen.

Then answer it.






And like most things in the bible - it is not a simple answer. But before we can answer your great questions - we still need someone to define for us what perfection is. 

Does it mean "without flaw"?  Does it mean " can never be flawed?"  Does it mean better than best?  Is it simply "really good"?   Is perfection as you deem? Or is it as I deem? Is there an objective understanding or measure of perfection?  Or is it simply a subjective standard? If a perfect being can do imperfect things - does that make it imperfect?  Would a perfect human be able to do imperfect things or would a perfect being be unable to do imperfect things?  Or if a perfect being cannot do imperfect things - yet they appear imperfect to an already imperfect being, is the thing imperfect or perfect? Can an imperfect being - a flawed being - really know whether what a perfect being is perfect or not? Surely the flawed being - having lost the ability to see perfectly is going to misunderstand whatever the perfect being is doing?  Is the perception of an thing by an imperfect being which is done by a perfect being - going to look flawed or not flawed?

Typical!.   I ask you one simple question and you have to come back with 14!!!! of your own. 

Tell me Reverend "Tradey" have you not worked these questions out for yourself by now? After all of your years of studies and  training and hard  earned qualifications and accreditations in the theological field?. Are you unable to come up with a definition of what god or the bible means when he or it uses the word - perfect / perfection?  

And  after all of your proclaiming to us of your in-depth bible study...;

Here>>#52

"I am not sure entirely what you mean [......]I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".#52

that you still haven't worked out what god or the bible means when it uses the word perfect/perfection!!!?



My view is that humans were created very good.  And without flaw.  But were they perfect? 

And "without flaw" is universally accepted to mean perfect? ie flawless!

So without any more convoluted BS I am asking you can anyone ever be perfect? You appear to be saying NO; is that correct?














#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
Strawman argument.  The bible says God created man after his image and likeness. 

Genesis 1:27:“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Quoting a verse does not get around your strawman argument. 


Humanity was made very good. 
When you make something "in the image of X", you derive the outstanding qualities of X and implement it into your creation. If God is defined within the parameters of the "omni's", that is, any attribute he posses is infinite, then deriving even a percent of God's image would yield a perfect creation, as dividing infinity by anything results in infinity. 
Evidence please.  The bible says man was made very good. Not perfect.  Can you give an example of anything else being made in the image of something else to give some kind of credibility to your assertion? God does not have outstanding qualities.  He is perfect in every way.  Omnis in the manner of talking about God is meant to be a way of giving humanity the understanding that God is not limited by humanity's imagination.  Man was made without flaw but he was also made not fully mature, and he was made with freedom to make decisions that had implications.

The very fact that man had not reached maturity - and eating from the tree of life - demonstrates he had the ability to grow.  Perfection cannot grow more perfect. That would be a redundant situation.  If God wanted to make perfect humans, he could have. He chose not to do that.  And it was a perfect decision.  

Being made in God's image - is a different concept than talking about humanity having all power and all knowledge and all presence.  It is not talking about shape because God is a spirit.  It is not talking about divinity. The “image and likeness of God” (Gen 1:26) describes the special status of the human race, male and female, as God’s representatives in the created order. God has entrusted to humanity the rule over the created order  and that has not been removed by the fall. Instead, it has been perverted to wrong uses, with dire consequences for the rest of creation.






#33
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Strawman argument.  The bible says God created man after his image and likeness. 

Genesis 1:27:“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Quoting a verse does not get around your strawman argument. 

A strawman refers to the event where one misrepresents a proposition. I literally quoted your book with no edits. 

Humanity was made very good. 
When you make something "in the image of X", you derive the outstanding qualities of X and implement it into your creation. If God is defined within the parameters of the "omni's", that is, any attribute he posses is infinite, then deriving even a percent of God's image would yield a perfect creation, as dividing infinity by anything results in infinity. 
Evidence please. 
A posteriori and logic. 

Can you give an example of anything else being made in the image of something else to give some kind of credibility to your assertion?
This is not an evidence based assertion, it is a logic based one. Seriously read what I said again. 

...Man was made without flaw
But man was tempted, so obviously mans eventual capitulate temptation is a flaw. 

The very fact that man had not reached maturity
A man with no flaws cannot mature, for that would indicate that there is some wisdom that they have not obtained. 
#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
A strawman refers to the event where one misrepresents a proposition. I literally quoted your book with no edits. 
Really???  I'm not referring to the verse I am referring to the way you are expressing what you think being made in the image of God is.  No Christian takes it the way you have put it.  

Humanity was made very good. 
When you make something "in the image of X", you derive the outstanding qualities of X and implement it into your creation. If God is defined within the parameters of the "omni's", that is, any attribute he posses is infinite, then deriving even a percent of God's image would yield a perfect creation, as dividing infinity by anything results in infinity. 
Evidence please. 
A posteriori and logic. 
Is that your way of saying you made it up?   

Can you give an example of anything else being made in the image of something else to give some kind of credibility to your assertion?
This is not an evidence based assertion, it is a logic based one. Seriously read what I said again. 
All I was doing was taking you at your words - and asked you to provide more than just an assertion. What you have said above does not even make sense. Dividing infinity by infinity is not the same as defining perfection.  No one in Christian thought takes the view that being made in the image of God means they take on his omnis.  

Being made in God's image - is a different concept than talking about humanity having all power and all knowledge and all presence.  It is not talking about shape because God is a spirit.  It is not talking about divinity. The “image and likeness of God” (Gen 1:26) describes the special status of the human race, male and female, as God’s representatives in the created order. God has entrusted to humanity the rule over the created order  and that has not been removed by the fall. Instead, it has been perverted to wrong uses, with dire consequences for the rest of creation.


...Man was made without flaw
But man was tempted, so obviously mans eventual capitulate temptation is a flaw. 
You mistake the ability to choose to sin with a flaw.  Again, you are going to need to join the dots for me.    Being tempted is not sinful per se.  Giving into temptation is sinful - when the temptation is to sin. 

Adam - who had not fallen at that stage - was without flaw. He had no sin in him and had committed no sin.  The ability to choose to do right or to do wrong is not a flaw.  You have not demonstrated why it is a flaw.    I never said Adam was perfect and could only make good decisions.  The Bible does not say that either. In fact - since God alone is the measure of perfection and good, only God can ever be perfect.  Perfection in this sense is something which belongs to God as the only truly independent being.  Everything else - including the angels, and Satan are dependent on God. So everything else can choose to good or not.  Hence it is actually an absurdity to suggest humans could be so perfect that they could not possibly choose to do evil.  Humans after the fall do choose mostly to do wrong. In fact - since eating the fruit was the first act of doing "right in their own eyes: they have become their own measure of right and wrong. 

When people become Christians - they take on the ability to start to choose to do right and good.  Good of course is referring to the act of obedience to God and for his honour and glory. Non-believers do good - according to their own standards - but not according to the standard of God.    Hence for people to say they are good - makes sense in accordance with their own understanding. Yet it also means they misunderstand goodness and perfection.  Why do you think you are struggling with the concept of definition perfection? 

You are not a stupid person - and yet you continue to conflate the perfection of God with the measure of what you understand perfection to be. This is understandable - yet foolish as well. 

The very fact that man had not reached maturity
A man with no flaws cannot mature, for that would indicate that there is some wisdom that they have not obtained. 
What do you mean by flaw? I think a baby born essentially has no flaws.  They are smaller examples of humanity - but untouched by the depression and angst around them.  As they mature or grow into adults - they are becoming more perfect in some senses.  Yet the baby is not flawed - it is simply immature.  Immaturity is not flawed. Maturity and perfection in the Greek are often interchangeable.  


A lack of wisdom does not mean a flaw.  It simply means a lack of wisdom.   You would need to demonstrate that perfection is equivalent to without a flaw. 

There are many books which have no mistakes in them. Are they inerrant? Are they without flaw? An immature idea may not have any flaws in it. Yet it can be improved upon.   

#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
What is perfection? 


So for all of your proclaiming to us of your years of in-depth bible study...;

Here>>#52

"I am not sure entirely what you mean [......]I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".#52


that you still haven't worked out what god or the bible means when it uses the word perfect/perfection!!!?

#36
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Humanity was made very good. 
When you make something "in the image of X", you derive the outstanding qualities of X and implement it into your creation. If God is defined within the parameters of the "omni's", that is, any attribute he posses is infinite, then deriving even a percent of God's image would yield a perfect creation, as dividing infinity by anything results in infinity. 
Evidence please. 
A posteriori and logic. 
Is that your way of saying you made it up?   
No. 

Can you give an example of anything else being made in the image of something else to give some kind of credibility to your assertion?
This is not an evidence based assertion, it is a logic based one. Seriously read what I said again. 
All I was doing was taking you at your words - and asked you to provide more than just an assertion. What you have said above does not even make sense. Dividing infinity by infinity is not the same as defining perfection. 
God is defined as "omni-x", that is, all of his qualities are infinite in nature. He is infinitely loving, he is infinitely moral, he is infinitely powerful etc. To put simply - if you make something in the imagine of X, there must be some aspect in which X can be observed - even slightly. If I am inspired to recreate the Mona Lisa, in order to be considered successful, some aspect of the Mona Lisa must be observable. 

However, with God, his qualities are not finite, he is infinite - you can never derive an immoral being from a perfectly moral being. 

You mistake the ability to choose to sin with a flaw.
Having the option to choose a sin is not a flaw, choosing the sin is flawed. Obviously, if Adam is the image of God but he took the apple from the forbidden tree, then he is obviously flawed. But there's a contradiction, which I layed out above. 

What do you mean by flaw? I think a baby born essentially has no flaws.
They cannot survive on their own, they cannot eat on their own, they cannot sustain themselves, they cannot communicate, they cannot provide any quantitative benefit to society, they have little perception of self etc. 


#37
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I think the problem is with you. 

In Australia, teachers do not spoon feed their students. We expect them to do the learning. I suppose in England, like often it is in America, students are spoon fed by their teachers. Perhaps that is why both England and America is falling behind the rest of the world. 

I happen to think the best methodology for teaching and learning is inductive not deductive.  

I like my students to learn - and to do this requires thinking on their part. I will often ask them questions in response to their questions. I could just give them an answer - but that does not make them think.  Asking them questions means they have to use their brain. 

Now I know, at your tender old age, you have probably got a bit tired.  And that is ok.  Yet your disability does not require me to start spoon feeding you. And I know you don't want to have to think or use your brain.  But I am not your carer.  

If you ask me a question - very rarely will I give you a straight answer.  Sometimes I will because you Pommies have difficulty learning.  But mostly I will ask you a question back. To help you clarify what you have just asked. After all, although sometimes you ask great questions, you don't actually grasp exactly what you are asking, so you require some tuning of your question. To help you retune or fine tune your question - I ask you questions to assist you. You can thank me later. 

I know this causes you some frustration. Goodness you have expressed that many times.  Yet, in all honesty, I want to help you to think better - so I will continue to ask you questions.  How about this? When I ask you a question - rather than moaning about me asking you 14 more- and then letting your frustration falsely accuse me of not having an answer - try answering those questions.  I promise you. It will help you start thinking. And eventually you will fine tune your real question - and then the answer will probably come to you. 

The best lessons people learn are the ones they learn themselves.  Spoon feeding people really does not teach - it just produces propaganda - brainwashing. People will be able to repeat - sometimes even regurgitate - but they won't be able to explain why it is what it is. I don't want you to fall into the cult like brainwashed person - you seem to want to be.  I like you too much.  And I will do what I can - by helping you learn how to think better by asking you questions.  




#38
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
#39
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
God is defined as "omni-x", that is, all of his qualities are infinite in nature. He is infinitely loving, he is infinitely moral, he is infinitely powerful etc. To put simply - if you make something in the imagine of X, there must be some aspect in which X can be observed - even slightly. If I am inspired to recreate the Mona Lisa, in order to be considered successful, some aspect of the Mona Lisa must be observable. 

However, with God, his qualities are not finite, he is infinite - you can never derive an immoral being from a perfectly moral being. 
Thanks for at least attempting to articulate your position.  Perhaps though you might attempt to consult what the bible means by being made in God's image rather than putting your own spin on what you think it means.  OR perhaps you might consult some experts - commentators on what they think it means.  While you are treading down this line of thinking though - it is not helpful for me to answer you. For me - you are simply creating a definition for a concept that has been defined quite a different way. Hence, why I call it a strawman. 


You mistake the ability to choose to sin with a flaw.
Having the option to choose a sin is not a flaw, choosing the sin is flawed. Obviously, if Adam is the image of God but he took the apple from the forbidden tree, then he is obviously flawed. But there's a contradiction, which I layed out above. 
Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree.  He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him.   Being tempted to sin is not a flaw.  In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed.  He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think. 

Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful.  Was it a flaw per se? Or did it produce a flaw? I think eating the fruit led to him not being able to eat from the tree of life.  His body would continue to deteriorate and die.   I also think that without the tree of life Adam would have died. This by implication means that he would not live forever in his current form.  He required God to live.  Is it reasonable to say that a life that is totally dependent upon another is flawed? I would say no. 

As I  have said elsewhere, everything is dependent upon God. God is the only independent one in all of everything.  Not everything can be God. So - your logic must prove too much.  It is therefore incorrect.    After all, if you are arguing that dependency equates to being flawed, then whether Adam had a choice to sin or not is irrelevant, if Adam was dependent upon God. 

On the other hand, I would argue that dependency does not equate to being flawed.  I would argue that Adam was not created perfect but good. Unflawed but immature. And that his capacity to mature was dependent upon his loyalty to God as the determiner of good and evil not himself. By disobeying God, by wanting to be like God, by wanting to determine what was good and evil for himself, was saying "I don't need God". Adam demonstrated he did not want maturity or perfection as God determines it. He wanted to be able to define it himself. 

Adam was going to die unless he ate from the fruit of the tree of life. Was he therefore flawed because he was going to die? I say no. Death is inevitable for everything that has life.  But nor was he perfect.   Hence I would say that perfection and death are not compatible. If a perfect one dies, death could not hold him and would have to spit him back to earth.  Ironically, this is what happened to Jesus.  Jesus is the only perfect human. He died - the natural result of being hung on a cross to die of asphyxiation and of a spear through your side / heart.  Yet death could not hold him down. He rose from the dead. 

That is quite logical and reasonable and to be expected.   




#40
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
God is defined as "omni-x", that is, all of his qualities are infinite in nature. He is infinitely loving, he is infinitely moral, he is infinitely powerful etc. To put simply - if you make something in the imagine of X, there must be some aspect in which X can be observed - even slightly. If I am inspired to recreate the Mona Lisa, in order to be considered successful, some aspect of the Mona Lisa must be observable. 

However, with God, his qualities are not finite, he is infinite - you can never derive an immoral being from a perfectly moral being. 
Thanks for at least attempting to articulate your position.  Perhaps though you might attempt to consult what the bible means by being made in God's image rather than putting your own spin on what you think it means.  OR perhaps you might consult some experts - commentators on what they think it means.  While you are treading down this line of thinking though - it is not helpful for me to answer you. For me - you are simply creating a definition for a concept that has been defined quite a different way. Hence, why I call it a strawman. 
I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;

p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him. 
p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 
p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage. 
c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y. 
p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes. 
p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y. 
p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity. 
c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y. 
p7. Humans are not infinite. 
c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)

Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree.  He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him.  Being tempted to sin is not a flaw.  In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed.  He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think. 
I have to reiterate - being tempted is not a flaw, I am not asserting this. I am stating that giving in to temptation, which Adam did, reflects a flaw in character. 

Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful.  Was it a flaw per se?
I would say directly disobeying God's will is a flaw.

After all, if you are arguing that dependency equates to being flawed, then whether Adam had a choice to sin or not is irrelevant, if Adam was dependent upon God. 
My conclusion is simply that if God were to create something and claim that it is made in his own image, that thing must be infinite in power.
#41
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;

p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him. 
p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 
p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage. 
c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y. 
p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes. 
p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y. 
p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity. 
c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y. 
p7. Humans are not infinite. 
c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)
Of course you do not have to consult experts. Just like people don't need to consult medical people when they are sick or consult scientists when they want to discuss evolution or to consult with lawyers before they go to court. You are INDEED the expert - but therein lies the rub.  You are out of sync with every expert in the field of study of these documents.  Just don't expect me or anyone who actually wants a credible discussion to discuss your speculation with you. 

And as for you being unbiased, well kudos to you. I think all people are biased. No one is unbiased. 


Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree.  He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him.  Being tempted to sin is not a flaw.  In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed.  He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think. 
I have to reiterate - being tempted is not a flaw, I am not asserting this. I am stating that giving in to temptation, which Adam did, reflects a flaw in character. 
Your opinion has respectfully not a lot of validity to it - unless you actually are going to engage with others.  I also reject your opinion. 

Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful.  Was it a flaw per se?
I would say directly disobeying God's will is a flaw.
So would you say - that you disobeying God is a flaw about you? Or are you merely talking about what you consider a hypothetical situation in a story that you actually don't have authority to talk about? 

After all, if you are arguing that dependency equates to being flawed, then whether Adam had a choice to sin or not is irrelevant, if Adam was dependent upon God. 
My conclusion is simply that if God were to create something and claim that it is made in his own image, that thing must be infinite in power.
And therein is part of your problem.  Your faulty premises have led to define being made in the image of God to a conclusion that is inconsistent.  The Jews and Christians both define the image of God as something completely different to you. And they have done so consistently, and independently from each other. And yet, you have some kind of magic button which enables you to define it differently. 


#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I suppose in England, like often it is in America, students are spoon fed by their teachers. Perhaps that is why both England and America is falling behind the rest of the world. 

 Not sure that means anything to me or my question. I simply want you to explain what the meaning of the word "Perfect/Perfection when used in the bible?. 

I think the problem is with you. 

And your own problem at every turn is to avoid 1  simple question by replacing it with 14 questions!!! of your own as you have done above.Here>#26

Why are you finding this 1 simple question so difficult when it was YOU that raised it?  You have told us about your thousands of  hours put into reading the bible, and in TWO!!! other languages.

Here>>#52

"I am not sure entirely what you mean [......]I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".#52



I like my students to learn - and to do this requires thinking on their part. I will often ask them questions in response to their questions.

Except when it comes to almost anyone on this forum.



  But mostly I will ask you a question back. To help you clarify what you have just asked.


But YOU asked the same question, you absolute bone head.#22


After all, although sometimes you ask great questions, you don't actually grasp exactly what you are asking,

I am asking you simply to define the word Perfect/ Perfection when the word is used in the bible.. I am not asking you to depart some great arcane mystery.



The best lessons people learn are the ones they learn themselves.  Spoon feeding people really does not teach - it just produces propaganda

So after all of your THOUSANDS OF HOURS spent reading the bible in three languages, not to mention teaching, tutoring and lecturing on the matter#20, you cannot answer 1 simple question that you have asked yourself. 

You are a  joke Reverend "Tradey" not to mention a  fraud. . 🤣😂🤣😂


"I am not sure entirely what you mean [......]I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".#52


You couldn't even remember that Lot was righteous in the eyes of god. Have you forgotten this?  Well I haven't!>>


Tradesecret wrote: I can't seem to recall where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.  #8

Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so.  #8

Stephen wrote: 2 Peter 2:7 "and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless" . 

Tradesecret wrote: Good pickup Stephen, yes, I did forget about that passage.#9

"taught to memorise" 

My arse.😂🤣😂🤣

More of your lies exposed Mr Memory man. 











#43
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I love how you twist things. 

I have no more reason to answer a question than you do. And you choose not to answer questions.  

If you take the view that because I ask a question that I do not know the answer - then you are a fool.

If I don't know something - I admit it.  

If I am not confident about something I reveal it. 

If I forget something I also admit it. 

Unlike you, I have nothing to hide.   I am an open book.  But sadly, you keep forgetting to put on your reading glasses.  


#44
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I love how you twist things. 

What is it that you believe that I have "twisted", Reverend memory man? I have simply reminded you of your powers of memory that you bragged that you possess, here>> 
Tradesecret wrote: I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".#52


I have no more reason to answer a question than you do. And you choose not to answer questions.  

You are just simply a fraud and coward, aren't you Reverend memory man.


If you take the view that because I ask a question that I do not know the answer - then you are a fool.

So if you do NOT know simply answer , I do NOT know.

I asked you can anyone of us be perfect#24, it a yes or no question. You have said elsewhere that only god is perfect. So then does it not follow that your answer is NO?



#45
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I have told you that the answer is not simple. Even if you think you have just asked a simple question, it deserves more than just a simple answer.  Obviously you are wanting either a yes or no so that then you can ask your next little question or make some assertion proving the contradictions within Christianity or the bible. 

Yet, if you really did want an answer you would have addressed some of my questions.  But you don't.  Your intention is to ridicule and harass. Not to seek answers to questions.

Do you have an answer or simply more questions? 

You are correct in that I have indicated that only God is perfect.  I have also indicated that at times the bibles uses the term perfect equating it to maturity. 

My point is - it deserves more than a simple yes or no answer. 
#46
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I have told you that the answer is not simple.

Well you found it simple enough and straight forward enough to shout that ONLY god can be perfect. So shouldn't the answer to my question be no?

Can any one us us be perfect?#24

Even if you think you have just asked a simple question, it deserves more than just a simple answer. 

I also asked you what does god and the bible mean when it uses the word perfect/perfection, and you made a fkn song and dance about that too. Which is amazing after all of your self confessed acute bible memory prowess taught to you at a very early age#52



Obviously you are wanting either a yes or no so that then you can ask your next little question or make some assertion proving the contradictions within Christianity or the bible. 

Nope. I just want you to be honest and either say that you don't know or tell us what god and the bible means when it uses the word perfect/perfection?



  Your intention is to ridicule and harass. Not to seek answers to questions.

I ask questions because I want answers not because I do not want answers, you clown.


Do you have an answer

For what?


I have also indicated that at times the bibles uses the term perfect equating it to maturity. 

No you haven't.


#47
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;

p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him. 
p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 
p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage. 
c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y. 
p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes. 
p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y. 
p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity. 
c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y. 
p7. Humans are not infinite. 
c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)
Of course you do not have to consult experts. Just like people don't need to consult medical people when they are sick or consult scientists when they want to discuss evolution or to consult with lawyers before they go to court. You are INDEED the expert - but therein lies the rub.  You are out of sync with every expert in the field of study of these documents.  Just don't expect me or anyone who actually wants a credible discussion to discuss your speculation with you. 
Tell me which premise is wrong and why it is wrong. 

Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree.  He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him.  Being tempted to sin is not a flaw.  In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed.  He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think. 
I have to reiterate - being tempted is not a flaw, I am not asserting this. I am stating that giving in to temptation, which Adam did, reflects a flaw in character. 
Your opinion has respectfully not a lot of validity to it - unless you actually are going to engage with others.  I also reject your opinion. 
My opinion is backed up with logic which I proposed in a valid and sound form. 

Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful.  Was it a flaw per se?
I would say directly disobeying God's will is a flaw.
So would you say - that you disobeying God is a flaw about you?
I don't believe in God. 

Or are you merely talking about what you consider a hypothetical situation in a story that you actually don't have authority to talk about? 
To say that I do not have an authority in a topic, all whilst ignoring the argument that I propose isn't a very good argument on its own. 

 Your faulty premises
Which one. 

have led to define being made in the image of God to a conclusion that is inconsistent.
I'm taking the word of the bible and interpreting it in the most reasonable way. Mind you, the way that I interpret "made in the image of" is consistent with how the phrase is used. 

The Jews and Christians both define the image of God as something completely different to you.
The only definition of God I have utilized is the one which declares he posses the "omni" attributes.

#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;

p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him. 
p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 
p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage. 
c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y. 
p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes. 
p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y. 
p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity. 
c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y. 
p7. Humans are not infinite. 
c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)
Of course you do not have to consult experts. Just like people don't need to consult medical people when they are sick or consult scientists when they want to discuss evolution or to consult with lawyers before they go to court. You are INDEED the expert - but therein lies the rub.  You are out of sync with every expert in the field of study of these documents.  Just don't expect me or anyone who actually wants a credible discussion to discuss your speculation with you. 
Tell me which premise is wrong and why it is wrong. 
I would suggest every premise from P2 down is flawed.  the bible in no way suggests that humanity is infinite in any way. In fact it suggests the opposite - that humanity is mortal. And finite.  The notion of being made in God's image is not about resembling God in his attributes - as much as it is about humanity being given delegated authority.  The essence or core of God in one sense is authority.  God gave humanity alone amongst on the earth, authority over the rest.  This is where his image or representation is manifest. It is representation.  Humanity represents God to the creation. Indeed as man represents the creation to God. It is a priestly duty or a kingly duty.  God is king. He made humanity his under kings on earth to rule .  Hence to kill a human is intrinsically wrong because it is to harm the image of God - his authority as king.  This is why we don't kill each other.  This is why we don't assault each other. This is why we don't cheat and lie and steal from each other. It intrinsically harms the image of God. God's authority.  Every nation around the world picks this up in their criminal courts.  To kill someone is to attack the State. The State is the victim, not the victim per se.  This is why we have both a civil court and a criminal court.  Criminal courts - protect the State as victim and the civil courts protect the individual as victim.  


Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree.  He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him.  Being tempted to sin is not a flaw.  In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed.  He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think. 
I have to reiterate - being tempted is not a flaw, I am not asserting this. I am stating that giving in to temptation, which Adam did, reflects a flaw in character. 
Your opinion has respectfully not a lot of validity to it - unless you actually are going to engage with others.  I also reject your opinion. 
My opinion is backed up with logic which I proposed in a valid and sound form. 
Your opinion is backed up by your prejudice.  You don't believe in God and therefore you want to disprove humanity is made in God's image - and is nonsense. So you take what the bible says - and then interpret it "literally".  The bible is a book which contains many genres.  None is literal.  Literalism is not a genre. You are not applying textual analysis scientifically and like a pseudo scientist.  You are doing exactly what the fundamentalist - and evangelical does - interpreting without understanding what you are reading.  

Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful.  Was it a flaw per se?
I would say directly disobeying God's will is a flaw.
So would you say - that you disobeying God is a flaw about you?
I don't believe in God. 

Duh! 

Or are you merely talking about what you consider a hypothetical situation in a story that you actually don't have authority to talk about? 
To say that I do not have an authority in a topic, all whilst ignoring the argument that I propose isn't a very good argument on its own. 
It is a valid argument. It is one scientists use all of the time in respect of people who are not experts in their field. Besides I have not ignored your argument, I just don't agree with the manner in which you put it.  You ignore basic understanding of the texts.  You provide novel suggestions. You interpret according to principles which are entirely irrelevant to a proper interpretation. You also ignore what the experts have understood it to mean. Now you don't have to agree with experts - but you ought to engage with what they say - rather than just make up stuff according to your own reasoning. 


 Your faulty premises
Which one. 
From P 2 down. 


have led to define being made in the image of God to a conclusion that is inconsistent.
I'm taking the word of the bible and interpreting it in the most reasonable way. Mind you, the way that I interpret "made in the image of" is consistent with how the phrase is used. 
No you are not interpreting in the most reasonable way.  You are interpreting it literally according to a 21st century person who has no understanding of the language nor the literature you are attempting to interpret.  You are doing so ignoring all of the expert opinion available.   The book was written in Hebrew. Not in English. It was written in a non-literal genre. It was written pre- Gutenberg. It was written to a culture that understood imagery and symbolism and in a Hebrew idiom. None of these you touch on.  You are doing what I would call the literalist fundamentalist - interpreter who tries to interpret the Book of Revelation by the newspaper.  

The Jews and Christians both define the image of God as something completely different to you.
The only definition of God I have utilized is the one which declares he posses the "omni" attributes.

Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing.  No one says humanity assumes any of the omni attributes.  Again, why I say - strawman argument.  The only person who thinks that is a good idea is you. And you do not believe in God. Nor in the Bible and nor in Christianity. 

If you want to refute someone - you have to know what they believe. Don't just make stuff up and then prove that made up stuff wrong. 
#49
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;

p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him. 
p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 
p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage. 
c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y. 
p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes. 
p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y. 
p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity. 
c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y. 
p7. Humans are not infinite. 
c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)
Of course you do not have to consult experts. Just like people don't need to consult medical people when they are sick or consult scientists when they want to discuss evolution or to consult with lawyers before they go to court. You are INDEED the expert - but therein lies the rub.  You are out of sync with every expert in the field of study of these documents.  Just don't expect me or anyone who actually wants a credible discussion to discuss your speculation with you. 
Tell me which premise is wrong and why it is wrong. 
I would suggest every premise from P2 down is flawed.  the bible in no way suggests that humanity is infinite in any way.
Petitio principii. Your objection is essentially "premise 2 is wrong because it threatens the integrity of my desired conclusion". Essentially, your argument is 

p1. The claim Bones is making is: To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 
p2. The claim threatens to magnify contradictions in the bible. 
p3. The bible is immune to critique 
c1. Therefore, Bones claim is incorrect. 

If you want to debunk premise 2, that is,  to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y (which is tautological), you must show why,  prima facie, it is incorrect. 

My opinion is backed up with logic which I proposed in a valid and sound form. 
Your opinion is backed up by your prejudice.
To be prejudice is to have a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason. What I have provided is quite literally the definition of reason. 

 You don't believe in God and therefore you want to disprove humanity is made in God's image - and is nonsense.
My disbelief in God does not come before my reasons for disbelief. If there were valid reasons to believe in God, I would do so. It just so happens that the reasons which are most valid are the ones for atheism. 

So you take what the bible says - and then interpret it "literally". 
When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation". 

Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing. 
Of course not -just like how an anti globe earther will not accept scientific evidence which disrupts their predetermined belief. This is an argument that I am making, backed by logic and syllogisms. 



#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
Petitio principii. Your objection is essentially "premise 2 is wrong because it threatens the integrity of my desired conclusion". Essentially, your argument is 

p1. The claim Bones is making is: To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 
p2. The claim threatens to magnify contradictions in the bible. 
p3. The bible is immune to critique 
c1. Therefore, Bones claim is incorrect. 

If you want to debunk premise 2, that is,  to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y (which is tautological), you must show why,  prima facie, it is incorrect. 
you use the word - "some" and then specify "omnis".  You take a specific and try to apply it generally.  How does the bible use the term image and likeness. I can think of no situation whereby such words are used specifically to take on more than at the very most - the outward appearance - never the attributes of the thing it was imaging.    



My opinion is backed up with logic which I proposed in a valid and sound form. 
Your opinion is backed up by your prejudice.
To be prejudice is to have a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason. What I have provided is quite literally the definition of reason. 
You do have a preconceived position. Why else are you down a literal position rather than using the language it is actually written in. You are a fundamentalist. 



 You don't believe in God and therefore you want to disprove humanity is made in God's image - and is nonsense.
My disbelief in God does not come before my reasons for disbelief. If there were valid reasons to believe in God, I would do so. It just so happens that the reasons which are most valid are the ones for atheism. 
Whatever.  Of course it comes before your reasons.  If you believed in God, you would not even be bothered having this discussion. 


So you take what the bible says - and then interpret it "literally". 
When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation". 
Stop talking nonsense.  I never take anything in the bible literally.  The bible is not written in a genre of literalism at any point.  It contains genres such as history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, apocalyptic, gospel, etc. There is no known genre as literal, except in the mind of fundamentalists who are actually not talking about genre but about the distinction between literal and allegorical.   Literalism is not a genre.  At least try and become familiar with the type of genres before making yourself look like a simpleton. 

Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing. 
Of course not -just like how an anti globe earther will not accept scientific evidence which disrupts their predetermined belief. This is an argument that I am making, backed by logic and syllogisms. 
Again more nonsense.   Galileo was a scientist.  He refuted the then known world's paradigm because he used science to do so. What you are attempting to do is refute a theological concept with something that is not theological. And without any credentials. 

BTW I don't have an issue with you having novel ideas - even though you are a non-theologian.  Yet for you to try and discredit every theologian in the world on the basis of your own presumptions - and without any regard to the current practices of interpretation or even engaging with them is on you. 

Galileo did not just turn around and say - I am going to reject every known scientific method in order to prove you wrong. He used known and recognized practises to prove his point. It is because he did so - that he was successful eventually. 

Let's say your premises are correct and somehow you have lucked onto the proper way to understand this idea of image of God,  prove you are correct by now confirming it using the known practices of theology and understanding literature.  Otherwise - you stand alone and outside of peer group reviews. 

#51
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Petitio principii. Your objection is essentially "premise 2 is wrong because it threatens the integrity of my desired conclusion". Essentially, your argument is 

p1. The claim Bones is making is: To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y. 
p2. The claim threatens to magnify contradictions in the bible. 
p3. The bible is immune to critique 
c1. Therefore, Bones claim is incorrect. 

If you want to debunk premise 2, that is,  to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y (which is tautological), you must show why,  prima facie, it is incorrect. 
you use the word - "some" and then specify "omnis".  You take a specific and try to apply it generally. How does the bible use the term image and likeness.
You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 

When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation". 
Stop talking nonsense.  I never take anything in the bible literally.  
If the bible is never literal, then is it fiction? 

Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing. 
Of course not -just like how an anti globe earther will not accept scientific evidence which disrupts their predetermined belief. This is an argument that I am making, backed by logic and syllogisms. 
Again more nonsense.  Galileo was a scientist.  He refuted the then known world's paradigm because he used science to do so. What you are attempting to do is refute a theological concept with something that is not theological.
To be theological is merely to study the nature of God and religious belief - my engagement in this topic is in itself theological. I am using pure logic and reason to deconstruct the validity of the bible - something you have yet to refute. 

BTW I don't have an issue with you having novel ideas - even though you are a non-theologian.  Yet for you to try and discredit every theologian in the world on the basis of your own presumptions - and without any regard to the current practices of interpretation or even engaging with them is on you. 
Of course I am discrediting every theologian in the world, just as how Galileo disapproved of every "scientist" in his day. 
#52
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 The bible says man was made very good. Not perfect. 

But you don't accept the bible as  literal do you.
Here>> 
Tradesecret  wrote:  I never take anything in the bible literally. 
You also say that: 

The book was written in Hebrew. Not in English.#48.

So with a wave of your pompous hand, you have just rendered all bibles written in English unreliable, useless and  obsolete. 

But  then didn't you once say that you preferer the KJV or the NKJV of the bible?
#53
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I don't take the bible literally if the literal is about interpreting it. Literal is not a genre.  Would you suggest otherwise, Stephen?
#54
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 
You are.  You are totally inventing an entire new and novel position to try and make a point to reflect your own prejudice. Good for you. Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 


When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation". 
Stop talking nonsense.  I never take anything in the bible literally.  
If the bible is never literal, then is it fiction? 
The Bible has no literal genres.   Stop talking nonsense.   Literalism is not a genre.  Go and have a look. Stop talking nonsense.  Fiction is not the opposite of literalism. The categories are literal or allegorical.  But neither are genres. 

Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing. 
Of course not -just like how an anti globe earther will not accept scientific evidence which disrupts their predetermined belief. This is an argument that I am making, backed by logic and syllogisms. 
Again more nonsense.  Galileo was a scientist.  He refuted the then known world's paradigm because he used science to do so. What you are attempting to do is refute a theological concept with something that is not theological.
To be theological is merely to study the nature of God and religious belief - my engagement in this topic is in itself theological. I am using pure logic and reason to deconstruct the validity of the bible - something you have yet to refute. 

No it is not. You are merely supposing things. Speculation. Not an element of real theology.  What part of theology do you think you are talking about? 

BTW I don't have an issue with you having novel ideas - even though you are a non-theologian.  Yet for you to try and discredit every theologian in the world on the basis of your own presumptions - and without any regard to the current practices of interpretation or even engaging with them is on you. 
Of course I am discrediting every theologian in the world, just as how Galileo disapproved of every "scientist" in his day. 

But the whole point is - you are not.  Everyone knew Galileo was a scientist. No one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a theologian. 
#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
The book was written in Hebrew. Not in English.#48. I don't take the bible literally if the literal is about interpreting it.

IF!? 

So then you have rendered all  bibles written in English unreliable, useless and obsolete.  Yet suggest that people should read it for themselves? 


literal
/ˈlɪt(ə)r(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce

adjective

  1. 1.
    taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.
So you do not take it literal then, SEE!

Whenever you find yourself on the wrong end of the argument you will always try to redefine the words not just of the bible, but the whole of the fkn English language!

Your a clown reverend "Tradey"😂

#56
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Read my words again - 

I have never said literal is wrong. I said there is no genre called literal.   I distinguished between literal and allegory. But I suppose you missed that as well. 

There is no literal genre. Get that into your brain.  I know that will be difficult for you. 

We don't read the bible literally - save and except that we don't interpret the bible allegorically.  Hence every word is literal - yet the point is - that does not mean in a simplistic manner of rejecting the appropriate genre. 

Poetry is a genre.  Narrative is a genre. History is a genre.  Gospels are and so is wisdom literature. If you don't understand what genre you are referring to and how that is to be understood - then literal or allegorical makes no difference. 


#57
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Look. >> You have clearly said that you "NEVER take ANYTHING in the bible LITERALLY".

Tradesecret  wrote:  I never take anything in the bible literally. 



This means that you do not take the words of the bible in their usual or most basic sense or with metaphor or exaggeration.

Yet are quick to tell others to go read the bible. Why, if it is not to be taken literally and you profess to us that you, an "accredited and qualified"  Pastor and Chaplain  don't take it literally yourself?  What is the point of the bible!?

Should we take the raising of Lazarus literally or not?
What about the parting of the red sea?
The Virgin birth?
Water into wine?
Water from a stone?
Walking on water? 
What about long dead saints rising from their graves?
Did Jesus literally  rise from being literally dead for three days?

 All the above are in the BIBLE, are we then to take these a literal events OR NOT!?

Seems to me that you dip in and out of the literal if and when it suites you to do so and ONLY when it suites your own narrative. . 

You are full of tripe Reverend "Tradey". 😂

#58
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 
You are.
Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here. 

Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 
Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted. 

When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation". 
Stop talking nonsense.  I never take anything in the bible literally.  
If the bible is never literal, then is it fiction? 
The Bible has no literal genres.  Literalism is not a genre.
I did not say literalism was a genre - stop putting words in my mouth. 

To be theological is merely to study the nature of God and religious belief - my engagement in this topic is in itself theological. I am using pure logic and reason to deconstruct the validity of the bible - something you have yet to refute. 
No it is not. You are merely supposing things. Speculation.
Again - label my arguments what you want - they are substantiated by logic whereby each premise follows the last trivially. 

Of course I am discrediting every theologian in the world, just as how Galileo disapproved of every "scientist" in his day. 
But the whole point is - you are not.  Everyone knew Galileo was a scientist. No one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a theologian. 
But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"
#59
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Look. >> You have clearly said that you "NEVER take ANYTHING in the bible LITERALLY".

Tradesecret  wrote:  I never take anything in the bible literally. 

Yep - I wrote those words. I do not take the bible literally - in the sense of understanding its genre and its meaning. I really don't know why this is such a big deal to you. 

This means that you do not take the words of the bible in their usual or most basic sense or with metaphor or exaggeration.
That is not what I said. Stop twisting things.  I said - I don't take anything literally. In respect of understanding genre.  It is not a genre.  I do understand things in the bible in the way they are written, whether, narrative, historical, metaphorical or even exaggeration.  Literalism is not a genre.  The issue of literalism is the matter of whether words have a literal meaning or an allegorical meaning.  In other words, can we rely on their appearance or do we have to dig deeper to find some kind of hidden meaning?  It is you who have the secret meanings.  

Yet are quick to tell others to go read the bible. Why, if it is not to be taken literally and you profess to us that you, an "accredited and qualified"  Pastor and Chaplain  don't take it literally yourself?  What is the point of the bible!?
I am not sure how quick I am about  telling people to read their bible. I would be interested to know how many times I do. I am sure you can help, Stephen my own personal pet stalker.   You are deliberately conflating literalism with genre.  That is your problem not mine. 



Should we take the raising of Lazarus literally or not?
What about the parting of the red sea?
The Virgin birth?
Water into wine?
Water from a stone?
Walking on water? 
What about long dead saints rising from their graves?
Did Jesus literally  rise from being literally dead for three days?
I say we should take each of these pictures and stories in accord with the genre in which they are written.  You see, your conflation is mixing up the substance of a word and its genre.  I don't think any of the words in the bible are allegorical.  The words have a substantive meaning. We don't have to look for a hidden meaning or code word.  Some of these pictures are images.  But none are allegorical.   Some might be poetry. Some might be metaphor. Some might be narrative. Some might be a historical fact.     

Do you think they are literal or allegorical?  And do you think there is a specific genre for each? 




 All the above are in the BIBLE, are we then to take these a literal events OR NOT!?

Seems to me that you dip in and out of the literal if and when it suites you to do so and ONLY when it suites your own narrative. . 


#60
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Lunar108
Just bc the simulated characters experience pain doesn't mean the simulation didn't attend for it. You character is your character... and this, well... dang man, you are one sick motha for picking that character but respect bc it made me smile.