Either God is not Love or Yahweh is not God.

reply to post by czygyny


If you still keep the Torah I'd suggest reading Galatians and Romans.

reply to post by NOTurTypical




See, told you so...

I follow The Creator of all, His Messiah, and not the oft misunderstood words of Paul, alone. But be at peace...my salvation comes from faith in Messiah, alone...my understanding of His nature and will, however, and a keener understanding of prophecy comes from keeping what remains to be kept in His instructions and Appointed Feasts in Torah, in the Prophets and the wealth of information in Psalms and Proverbs.

It's always started in faith, finished in obedience.

Romans 7:12
“Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

reply to post by czygyny

and not the oft misunderstood words of Paul, alone.

I didn't realize I was saved by what Paul wrote, this is new news. I thought I was saved (past tense of "Salvation" since there are 3 terms used), by Christ's atoning death on the cross in my stead.

Secondly, Peter didn't seem to have any trouble understanding Paul, or trouble endorsing all Paul had to say in all his epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16).

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That's OK. I told you that you and I would not agree. After much prayer and resistance and finally obedience, I am following a path He has set before me and it has been a truly interesting and edifying walk. This subject can and will end up being a war of verses that will go on ad infinitum and this thread is not the place.

Peace and shalom.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Shirak

 

Originally posted by Shirak
The bible is full of contradictions when taken out of context.

And in what way am I taking these passages out of context?

May I recommend an Audio Torrent from Professor Goldman on Myths and Mythology.

You can, but I'd like to see what specifically that has to do with this thread.

I think his lectures accurately point out the errors in translation and the fact that scribes often translated and wrote their own interpretations of text. That many stories in the bible are actually mirror images of earlier Sumerian texts. The true value of works like this are to show the values of the powers that be at the time and the populations.

True, I agree with that...I find that the Bible has no literal truth to it at all.

I appreciate the Torah etc were all meant to be translated word for word (I think there's a curse attached to that)

Crazy thing, the first six excerpts from the Bible I provided are all from the Torah...

The literal acceptance of many passages is IMO a form of ignorance or perhaps it is just a different form of perception than my own.

Alright, and why is that? Why is the declaration by a deity that it is jealous not something to be taken literally when it is reiterated quite often?

1.And in what way am I taking these passages out of context?
Mine was not a statement directed at you specifically but pointing out that I can cut and paste words from any script to give new meaning and overall reference frame. I believe I have already given my own opinion on the accuracy and integrity of this piece of work.

2.You can, but I'd like to see what specifically that has to do with this thread.
The lecture series has everything to do with this thread many points that you make are covered in it.

3.True, I agree with that...I find that the Bible has no literal truth to it at all.
Literal truth is a matter of perspective. I still see value in this piece of work through philosophies and stories used to convey belief systems. I am not trying to debate literal truth or your experience of it. If you are debating historical accuracy well I have made it clear where I stand on this issue.

4.Alright, and why is that? Why is the declaration by a deity that it is jealous not something to be taken literally when it is reiterated quite often?
I believe I addressed my opinion on this in regards to the way this piece of work was translated and changed borrowed from earlier texts. I do not believe the current text is more than an echo of the original document. Many times it has changed and been translated to support the ideas of the time.

This is why I recommended Professor Goldman's lectures I considered your ideas and thought you would benefit in your research with this lecture series. I do not remember where I downloaded it from however it was free. (Myths and Mythology) This series helped me to get a little closer to seeing the origins of stories and gave perspective on how they have been changed by cultures as they have been passed on. It is in these changes that I find the literal value. Noting that Culture b made x change in a's story to reflect their own values. It requires knowledge of the previous stories and similarities.

IMO living in hte present is more important than living by past values living by what resonates truth with the true self. Inspiration can even be found in a dirty beaker...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Frankly, the entire first century of Christian history is mainly guess work and sorting through what biased accounts we have from the time. The period from ~30-130 is very foggy.

Because you're not stupid, you know that's not true. Therefore you're just trying to manipulate people.
Shame.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by CaptChaos

 

The BIG LIE is trying to tie the Old Testament and the New Testament together. The old testament god, is a jealous and vengeful god. Says it right there. Demands sacrifice. Rejects Cain cause he grew some plants, while Abel killed some animals. This "God" liked the death and blood better. Hmmm....

So what? Who doesn't like the smell of barbeque? It's intoxicating.

We were supposed to be vegetarians until the demon-lord Jahveh pulled his: "See what you've made me do" of putting the blame for his own incompetence on mankind. After that blood and gore became OK.

Jahveh actually parasites on human bio-energy, hence his blood-obsession.

I'm sorry about the low propagandistic black/white level in this post, but it seems to be the rule of the game in some contexts.

Originally posted by czygyny
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

See, told you so...

I follow The Creator of all, His Messiah, and not the oft misunderstood words of Paul, alone. But be at peace...my salvation comes from faith in Messiah, alone...my understanding of His nature and will, however, and a keener understanding of prophecy comes from keeping what remains to be kept in His instructions and Appointed Feasts in Torah, in the Prophets and the wealth of information in Psalms and Proverbs.

It's always started in faith, finished in obedience.

Romans 7:12
“Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

edit on 6/8/2011 by czygyny because: spelling

Paulus was a con-man, plain and simple. On and off backed up by one of the most fascistic organisations ever existing, on par with the nazi-groups with fantasies about the übermensch.

Paulus being the opportunistic Hitler of his time.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I'm sure Jephthah's daughter smelled just delightful on the pyre.

...oh, and Hebrew sacrifice wouldn't traditional barbecue...I don't tend to keep the hair and horns on the animals I cook up, do you? And I'm sure you're familiar with the smell of burning hair (most people encounter it at some point), it's quite bad.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yep, attempted mockery is basically all you have at this point. Can't win on facts, can't win on arguments, can't even bother addressing the OP...you'll just appeal to ridicule.

Thanks for using logical fallacies to demonstrate the strength of my position.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I'm sorry, but how is a hasty generalization to take a line from the Bible and show that it's not applicable?

1 John 4:8

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love

...I demonstrated that, by the definition of love provided in 1 Corinthians, Yahweh is not love. So either God is not love or Yahweh is not God.

There's no hasty generalization here, there's showing that the Bible is damn inconsistent. If pointing out inconsistencies is a generalization....what the hell is wrong with you?

reply to post by Vicky32


I'm sorry, but that is very true. There are no verifiable accounts of Christian history for its first two decades. Not a single shred of documentation from the period of ~30-50. Then we start getting Paul and the initial Gospels...and those can hardly be considered as definitive works on Christian history as Paul doesn't do much to acknowledge history and Gospel histories are...well...at odds with actual histories.

We actually know a lot about what happened in the region between ~30-50, but none of it has to do with Jesus.

I'm saying there's a to of fuzziness between ~30-130 because there was a lot of disagreement in the early Church and we don't really have documentation from all sides and it's not entirely unbiased where we do have documentation.

Of course, I could just say: Prove my skepticism wrong. Where is the documentation? Where is the physical evidence?

reply to post by bogomil

We were supposed to be vegetarians

We could play the "supposed to be" game all day long. We were "supposed to be" nude also.

Are you saying that since we were "supposed to be vegetarians" we should not find the smell of barbeque intoxicating?

reply to post by bogomil

Paulus was a con-man, plain and simple.

Ouch that sucks, why does Peter endorse all Paul says in all his epistles then? (2 Peter 3:15-16)


It's bad enough Paul is a charlatan as you contend, but now Jesus's right hand man is endorsing all Paul says?


EEEggaaaaadddZZoooooooKKKs!!!!!!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure Jephthah's daughter smelled just delightful on the pyre.

Interesting, you still love to use the extreme rare exception to define the rule even though it's been pointed out time and time and time again that it's a fallacy of logic. I guess it's your reasoning functions that need rewired, you'll need to see to that I suppose.

...oh, and Hebrew sacrifice wouldn't traditional barbecue...I don't tend to keep the hair and horns on the animals I cook up, do you? And I'm sure you're familiar with the smell of burning hair (most people encounter it at some point), it's quite bad.

Hair would burn in relatively a few seconds in the massive fires of the altar. Moot point. And the people and priests ate the sacrifices meats, kinda why the Holy Days are called FEAST days.

God and His people LOVE big barbeque celebrations. Sounds like a perfect deal to me.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yep, attempted mockery is basically all you have at this point. Can't win on facts, can't win on arguments, can't even bother addressing the OP...you'll just appeal to ridicule.

Thanks for using logical fallacies to demonstrate the strength of my position.

From the guy that YET AGAIN used the "exception to define the rule" fallacy? Gotcha, now you're using Special Pleading.


Have you considered the possibility I might just enjoy mocking skeptics?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sorry, but how is a hasty generalization to take a line from the Bible and show that it's not applicable?

1 John 4:8

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love

...I demonstrated that, by the definition of love provided in 1 Corinthians, Yahweh is not love. So either God is not love or Yahweh is not God.

There's no hasty generalization here, there's showing that the Bible is damn inconsistent. If pointing out inconsistencies is a generalization....what the hell is wrong with you?

Nothing is "wrong with me". You told us earlier in another thread that you'll pass just fine for a Greek scholar because you used to own a concordance.

Did you forget there are 5 different words in the Greek we translate as "LOVE" in the English? The only people who think there are "inconsistencies" are pseudo-Theologians who don't understand/can't comprehend Biblical Hermeneutics.

Not my problem you refuse to learn Hermeneutics as a first step.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



In reply to the OP....


Hi.
Id just like to point out a few things.

You are making the same exact mistake as christians... in the sense, you seem to be treating the bible as a WHOLE....as if it is NOT a collection of books/documents written by a number of people over centuries and perhaps, even millennia.

Reason being... you quote Paul (someone who is very different from OT prophets) to state that God is love and then use OT verses to demonstrate that God is not love.

Also, think about this... why does God have to be love, just because Paul said so?
Ask yourself... If God (regardless of whether or not you believe in him) wielded the power to create the universe in which you and me live in... why would He care about being loved by his creations (i.e us humans)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Nothing is "wrong with me". You told us earlier in another thread that you'll pass just fine for a Greek scholar because you used to own a concordance.

...no, that's an outright lie. I said that there are some things where being a Greek scholar isn't required and a concordance and dictionary are pretty damn handy for those places where translations are sketchy.

Did you forget there are 5 different words in the Greek we translate as "LOVE" in the English?

Yep, because ancient Greek wasn't a very precise language. Hell, there are a lot of words in English that are synonymous with love.

The only people who think there are "inconsistencies" are pseudo-Theologians who don't understand/can't comprehend Biblical Hermeneutics.

Yay, special pleading! So there isn't an inconsistency in King David participating in a homosexual relationship while the Bible condemns it? There isn't an inconsistency where Jesus has different sets of last words? There isn't an inconsistency in Paul's words on circumcision for the sake of societal acceptance versus his actions concerning that exact same thing?

You do realize that there are Biblical scholars, well versed in the appropriate dialects of archaic Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, that don't accept the Bible as truth, right?

Hell, instead of launching into a personal attack screed, why don't you just demonstrate how I'm wrong. If you are wrong in a statement on evolution, I'll explain exactly why you're wrong and then point you to further reading if you want me to.

Instead you say:

Not my problem you refuse to learn Hermeneutics as a first step.

Yeah, I have to spend a decade or so learning what is basically conformation bias, compartmentalization, and cognitive dissonance. In fact, it's so funny that the first step would involving accepting your premises.

Granted, you (and many others) have argued against evolution, the Big Bang theory, and modern geology out of pure ignorance, and I've taken the time to give my own cursory understanding of why you're wrong on all of those topics. All without lying about your previous statements, chastising you for not studying them, or using a special-pleading fallacy.

Please, tell me why I'm wrong or continue in wrong action. It's really up to you.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Well, I'm acting in the way I am to speak to people who do treat the Bible as a complete document rather than a disparate collection of dozens of books from dozens of authors and editors. I'm finding common ground, I do accept that the Bible is not a single document but in fact a collection.

And read the title: Either God is not Love or Yahweh is not God.
I leave open the possibility for God not being love right there.

...even though I just don't believe in that being in the first place.