3 conclusions about the creator (God)

A group for members of all religions, or no religion at all, to talk about religion

  1. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Hros How do you like to respond to anti-Jewish [religion] sentiments about the Talmud harshly sanctioning execution for a whole host of sins?

    To me, it breaks down to the fact that God owns that is right and wrong, as well as the consequences. It's a common issue difficult to respond to in secularist way. Pride tells them there is no sin in denying God or mistreating some people. And, yet, religions people generally believe that God, the Creator, or the universe, variously, will punish/demote/etc the wicked.
     
  2. Hros

    Hros Fapstronaut

    1,670
    3,862
    143
    Well I haven't studied the entire Talmud (one day hopefully :)), but the basic answer I believe is that though the Talmud - and yes, all previous and following Jewish texts of law - sanctions execution - it doesn't actually do that in reality. It wasn't as though when Jews were in power, they went around as religious nuts and slaughtered people left and right. Far from that. What most people overlook is how complicated it is to actually charge someone with the death penalty - there's a whole list of requirements that must be met for that to happen (things not mentioned in the old testament. We use the Oral Tradition for Jewish law. The old testament is used for other things). That immediately cuts down the list to next-to-nothing.
    More so: The Talmud states that a court (and court means the most learned and wisest of sages) that gives the death penalty once in 70 years is considered murderous!!

    If so, why are there so many death punishments? It's to make a point - that whether or not you, as a sinner, met all of the requirements for execution - what you did was still terribly wrong.
    Indeed, for example, there's the law of killing someone "shogeg", by mistake. It was an accident. So this person isn't killed but has to go to a special city which he can't leave until the death of the high priest. But it was an accident! Why is he punished? The answer is simple: he should have been more careful. What he did was still wrong.

    There's a lot more to be said, but we'll leave it at that for the moment.
     
    vxlccm likes this.
  3. EXPONENTIALLY

    EXPONENTIALLY Fapstronaut

    Not at all. The KJV Bible is the preserved word of God.

    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times [KJV is the 'seventh translation' of the Bible in English]. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. -Psalms 12:6-7

    The prior translations leading up to the KJV were given in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible" that the translators went by after they were commissioned to do their work.
    1. Tyndale
    2. Matthew
    3. Coverdale
    4. Great Bible
    5. Geneva
    6. Bishops
    ...7. Authorized Version (KJV)

    Why the KJV:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFIc5Y7xpsJLJf_qrDlParLXxlhYmwBXz

    It has been written in a period of 1500 years and every word is linked between prophecies and events that have been proven as historical facts and with archeoligical and scientific evidence.



    Jesus fulfilled more than 350 prophecies. https://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html



    But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. -1 Corinthians 14:38
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  4. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    I'm curious what your opinion is, then, of all the other English translations of the Bible? Any particular versions you care to comment on, such as the NIV, NKJV, etc?
     
  5. ⏳⏳⏳

    ⏳⏳⏳ Fapstronaut

    I would understand if some christian person said that the book needs to be read in original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. But English? That seems ... arbitrary. Especially when you personally are French :D

    And why the hell would you require one specific translation to English? So the James version is 100% holy and the international version is 100% Satan? Roflmao what's going on in your brain man.
     
    vxlccm and Hros like this.
  6. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    "Arbitrary" is pretty much my thought. Except I'm seeing it from the perspective of respecting the Word as a valuable thing to be treasured. Also, though, is to see with eyes wide open into history -- and think it difficult and impossible to reconcile an idea that there were no mistakes or corruptions in the translation, copying, preservation, and political intrigue for hundreds of years of handwritten scrolls and historical turmoil. Yes, all things are possible to God, but all things are not possible to mankind to whom the word was entrusted. It's actually impossible to think it's infallible ;p
     
  7. Hold it in

    Hold it in Fapstronaut

    375
    629
    93
    For those arguing there are contradictions in the bible, this video explains why they are not infact contradictions at all. Context is important

     
  8. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    Hm. Who was talking about contradictions? @Hold it in

    I mentioned outright intentional corruptions and accidental errors from copying, translation, etc. Which kinda makes a video about contradictions pointless as it doesn't at all address the core issue. So, yeah, not watching another one of those videos. Probably no one else will, either? There's far more problems with wording in the bible than a non-Christian just claiming there's contradictions in an uneducated way. The teachings recorded in the Bible are extremely valuable, just weren't recorded in an infallible way in my view.

    Yes, context is important. And, with that, the context of a full backdrop of history and HOW the books of the bible were preserved to this day. All the many other translations after the King James, including attempts to source older discovered scrolls, all prove this very point. Contradictions isn't even nearly a relevant issue.
     
    Hold it in likes this.
  9. Hold it in

    Hold it in Fapstronaut

    375
    629
    93
    Oh I'm sorry I was speaking about this chap. Not you

    Can be found on page 3 half way down
     
    vxlccm likes this.
  10. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    Dude, you copied and pasted dozens of verses that aren't even part of Christianity. Christianity is about Jesus, not about Judaic law. Get it right.

    And who told you the earth was created in exactly six 24-hour periods? The Bible is an anthology of different types of books--books of history, law, prophesy, songs, letters, eyewitness accounts--some are meant to be read metaphorically. Some are meant to be read literally. Some are meant to be read literally in the context of the time they were written.

    You have to actually think critically in order to understand the Bible. I realize that's probably asking a bit much.
     
    vxlccm likes this.
  11. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    Typical. Posts a link and acts like he just dropped the mic.

    BuT lOoK aT tHiS pRoOf!!!!
     
    vxlccm and brilliantidiot like this.
  12. brilliantidiot

    brilliantidiot Fapstronaut

    725
    7,616
    123
    Not convincing at all. Thank you for giving my faith a boost.
     
    vxlccm likes this.
  13. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    Well, for starters, dozens of prophesies about the Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus. Hundreds of years before Jesus lived, dozens of prophesies were written about the Messiah: that he would be born in Bethlehem; come from the line of David; be raised in Nazareth; have a ministry of miracles; 1) be betrayed by a close friend 2) for 30 pieces of silver 3) which would then be thrown down into the temple and 4) later used to buy land; that he would endure great suffering; that he would be resurrected; and on, and on, and on. All of these were fulfilled in Christ, with eyewitness accounts.

    To date, not a single prophesy of the Quran has come to pass. Not one. That's one of many things that gives Christianity a leg-up on Islam when it comes to truth.

    I don't fear much, because I'm going to heaven for eternity to experience more fulfillment and bliss than any of us can possibly imagine.
    "The LORD is my light and my salvation--whom shall I fear?" Psalm 27:1

    Thank goodness for that.
    "And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 18:3

    You can say that again.
     
    vxlccm likes this.
  14. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    I read the NIV because when I read the KJV, I feel like I need to be wearing a suit of armor and holding a goblet filled with the blood of my enemies.
     
    vxlccm likes this.
  15. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    745
    7,696
    123
    For many non believers they don't believe that they need saving and why would they? If your life is generally good and there's nothing really wrong with and you can rely on yourself and your family members to help you with any issues you may have, why would you see the need for a rescuer? It's not people's responsibility to somehow figure out which if any religion is true and to get rescued especially if their life is just fine on it's own.
    Plus, as I've said before other Christians say differently to you while using the Bible to support their case and there's no way for me to verify who's right.

    And they could just as easily assert the same about you

    The moon thing, Syria and universe thing are potentially verifiable by certain instruments and methodologies, the same can't be said of hell, unless one has a personal experience or something.

    That's exactly what I try to do, I try to limit what I believe because I see how easy it is to be mistaken or fooled, so I really do try to limit how many things I believe in. I'm agnostic about most things and actually believe very little and of course religion needs a high burden of proof due to the very nature of the claim and yes I am content believing the very little that I believe. I don't have a problem saying I don't know. If I went by some persons' burden of proof on religion, I'd have to believe that every single religion is true since faith is a bad methodology of getting to truth and can lead you to believe anything.
     
  16. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    The point should be, rather, to acknowledge how much of life does require faith. What was asked is not to eschew all non-first-person knowledge, but to realize how much of existence simply does work on faith.

    A good goal is also to think that those with a religion aren't all that different.

    One area only is different, which is where they work on spiritual learning and a relationship with God and listening to the unseen based on spiritual rather than physical evidences :)
     
  17. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    745
    7,696
    123
    Maybe some aspects of it but it wouldn't be a lot, would it? I would think that most of existence works based on evidence.

    How? Religion specifically requires faith despite the evidence or a lack thereof.

    Yeah, that's what is claimed but that's a whole other discussion.
     
  18. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    That point wasn't about how much of the universe relies on faith, but how much of our human experience we depend on a lot of external variables following rules, and we trust that it works.

    Spiritual evidence is real to nearly all people on the planet. People nearly universally acknowledge there is more to existence than the physical. And, most of that segment also thinks we will exist beyond this life. Denying all spiritual evidence is actually to specifically ignore other people's experiences as evidence.
     
  19. Brokenman123

    Brokenman123 Fapstronaut

    745
    7,696
    123
    Trust than different than faith though, trust relies on evidence while faith does not since evidence is specifically not a requirement for faith and is actually an antithesis to it.

    I've thought about this as well, people's claim to personal experiences of God has always intrigued me even if it's only evidence that's verifiable for them alone and not others, and it actually has kinda led to believe that there's something out there but I'm not sure what thing is so I have to be agnostic about it.
     
    vxlccm and ⏳⏳⏳ like this.
  20. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    Very true. In fact, it's one of the reasons Jesus said it was virtually impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. People who have all their needs met, or who don't think they need saving, are unlikely to recognize their need for a savior. But sin is like a cancer ... and sometimes people don't realize they've got it until it's too late.

    Of course it is. It's every individual's responsibility to think critically and judge truth claims. When a person stands before God at the end of their life, they won't be able to say, "I didn't have enough information / I wasn't given a chance to research properly / etc.". Every person will most certainly be held responsible for what they do with the claims of Christ. I can't speak for any other religion, nor do I care to.

    Sure there is. You can read scripture and analyze the competing claims in the light of what you read. You can discern who has the better argument. It's no different than any other debate where the issue is something you're not very familiar with. You don't have to be an expert on something in order to discern the correct answer. You don't have to be a chef in order to tell when one dish is prepared better than another. You don't need to be a director to tell a good movie from a bad movie.

    They could, and I'd say they were wrong, but I'd be much better at backing up my claim.

    Well, obviously believing every religion is true would be a very foolish thing to do. Logically, that would be impossible. Christians, Jews, and Muslims say there is only one God. Hindus say there are millions of gods. Either one is right, or they're all wrong. They cannot all be equally right. Christians believe God came to earth as a man in the form of Jesus. Jews and Muslims reject this. Only one can be right--there is no other logical option.

    With deductive reasoning like that, it's rather simple to narrow down which faith has a stronger claim, even if it doesn't appear to be 100% proven.

    Nonsense. There is a ton of compelling evidence for Christianity. In fact, there's an entire branch of Christian study--apologetics--that deals with the logical, rational, and intellectual defense of the Christian faith. I will never, ever say "Oh, I have no evidence, I just believe." I believe because I find the evidence compelling.

    Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis;
    The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel;
    Reason for God by Tim Keller;
    Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell;
    Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace;
    I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Norman Geisler

    ^^^^ these are all very solid books about why the Christian faith is reasonable and why its truth claims are compelling. And it's worth noting that over half of those authors are former atheists.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
    vxlccm likes this.

Share This Page