Religion The Bible is not the WOG (Word of God)

[RockLee]

He is talking about his coming "fate" or the final moments of his "mission."

Wow, Jezus on a mission...sounds like SF to me

I think religion is a hobby like any other.Some play sports, some play games, some are religious and go to church.Either you like it, or you don't!

 

[Mike Cash]

What do you mean it sounds idiomatic?

I mean it sounds idiomatic.

I`ve never heard an idiom like that,

You've used it all your life, and never noticed it.

and that kind of phrase isn`t sprinkled around in the Bible as some kind of common idiom. Have you seen that idiom sprinkeled around in many other texts?

I've used it all my life, and encountered it in numerous places.

If something isn`t recognized as a common idiom in the Bible and then someone is just going to rely on the excuse it sounds idiomatic,

"Excuse"? How about "supposition" or "impression" instead?

then everything in the Bible can just be one big set of idioms. That is a lazy excuse if someone isn`t going to show that the phrase was a common idiom of the time.

That's a very long-winded and combative way to ask for clarification, don't you think?

Give some thought to the word "inspire" (http://tinyurl.com/cnvna) and the possibility (probability, even) of it being an awkward translation or phrasing of an idiomatic use of the word becomes readily apparent.

I am more than willing to give some poetic license to symbolism, for example like when Jesus asks before his apprehension if this "cup" could pass from him. In that case we know he isn't talking about a real "cup." He is talking about his coming "fate" or the final moments of his "mission."

But, if someone is going to get into the "that`s what it says, but not what it means," then they have responsibility to explain what it is that is being meant.

And one has the responsibility to maintain a civil tongue in one's head when asking for clarification.

 

[Ma Cherie]

The bible,god and all that crap is man-made,simple as that.
"Can you prove it's crap..blabla..yaddayadda.." -> No, I can't.But you can't prove it's correct either.So......When I was 12 or so I already noticed those "religious" people are trying to screw us over with their nonsense and keep us on a leash.Well you know my view on religion !

You need need to chill. Seriously.kashii:

 

[Mike Cash]

Mikecash,

The child in your example at the beginning of the "message game" is not perfect, therefore he as the analogy of God getting the message started is not analogical.

So sorry you were unable to grasp the point and grabbed a straw instead.

Or, are you suggesting He wants confusion? A loving God wanting confusion which causes bloodshed due to creating different denominations sounds like a deranged version of a God professing love. Sounds strange to me. Why doesn`t it you?

What sounds strange to me is how you have managed to leap to conclusions about my thoughts as to the nature of God, when I haven't ventured a single word on the matter in this thread.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The Bible falls on itself. Examined closely one sees that many of its conflicting assertions try to occupy the same space. Either ?gone?h something is ?gA?h or it is ?gB?h. Something cannot be two different things at the same time. Reason tells us that. To abandon reason is to simply rationalize. But, here is another problem for Biblicists:

1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Conflicting with:

Ex. 33.11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.

Now, which is it? Is God seen, or isn`t he. The Bible in this case (and others) clearly contradicts itself. Very few people would trust something that blatantly contradicts itself in their lives. Those that do fall back on rationalizing.

 

[No-name]

No contradiction at all. That's a bit too easy SVF: 1 John, and John are speaking about knowing the totality of god and the verb in the sentence is "seen." Exodus is talking about communication- communion with God and the verb is "speak." I would also recommend that you and the more fundamentalist of my brehtren stop reading verses so entirely literally and discover the more overt set of messages presented in the text.

 

[Mike Cash]

As an aside....why do you have such a massive raging hard-on for God, the Bible, and Christians? Or do you not have and I'm just misreading you?

 

[No-name]

Mikecash- who knows? Hate is a strong motivator- possibly borne of pain or disappointment or maybe the anger over percieved hypocracy of believers? The fact that hearts can be entirely hard- that disbelief must find a reason- and construct a logic?

Or could it be pride? Considering that brilliant theologians have wrestled with these same issues for two millinea and believing the you are somehow smarter, more clever, or have some unique perspective that all those who came before you somehow missed is another motivator.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro: No contradiction at all. That's a bit too easy SVF: 1 John, and John are speaking about knowing the totality of god and the verb in the sentence is "seen." Exodus is talking about communication- communion with God and the verb is "speak." I would also recommend that you and the more fundamentalist of my brehtren stop reading verses so entirely literally and discover the more overt set of messages presented in the text.

Where does it say anything about knowing the ?gtotality?h of God in those verses? That is merely insertionism utilized as a means to back one?fs self out of a contradiction.. It says what it says, and the verb is ?gseen?h like you have admitted.

Translators, up to 100 of them, each with 20, 30, or 40 years of expertise and experience in ancient biblical languages chose to translate it how it appears. Translating is catching the essence of the meaning, not word per word direct translating. If those translators with those hundreds of years between them felt that another word more appropriately existed so that the essence of the meaning could be clear and accurate, then why wouldn`t they have chosen it? They didn`t, clearly because they didn`t feel that another appropriate meaning could be forced or warranted into the translation. Your argument is with them, not me.

The Exodus verse is quite clear because it goes as far to use an analogy to make its point so that man could understand it as it relates to daily life on Earth amongst man --, ?g...as a man speaks with his friend.?h It is a general description and in general "as we speak with our friends" we do look at them. Or we sure did before the advent of the telephone which is when that Bible verse was put down.

Of course Bible WOG believers want the verses to not be read as they are, for if they are, they give the Bible up for the duplicite error laden document that it is. What would be your reaction if you went to a housing rental agency and before signing the contract to rent, and after noticing hundreds of errors and contradictions, the agent tells you: ?gThis contract was written a few thousand years ago, so please don`t read it for what it says, just discover the overt messages.?h I think the more reasonable of us would go looking for a more reliable agent without a forked tongue.

The contradiction stands.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Furthermore, look at:

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

in direct contradiction to:

Gen. 32:30
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Clear contradictions -- unless one gets into their backbending acrobatic performance of rationalizing.

On a thought, it is weak just to accuse someone of hatred when they merely point out errors. Does one hate a housing agent merely because the potential renter points out errors and contradictions in the rental contract? I don`t. Why do you?

But the Bible brings out that kind of behaviour in their followers, as we have already seen here. Someone disagrees with it and points out the errors? -- Best to call them filled with hate instead of addressing the points.

Perhaps WOGers are inclined to do that because their belief system which draws from the WOG has a lot of things to hate in it. Hatred is a disease of the mind that spreads. If you read enough of it, I guess it gets into you.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As an aside....why do you have such a massive raging hard-on for God, the Bible, and Christians? Or do you not have and I'm just misreading you?

I have no "hard-on" for Angry Bible God, because he does not exist. God may exist, but not Bible God. If something is not true and that something is believed by many and those persons are trying to get their agenda based on those beliefs inserted into the society in which I live, and I view those beliefs and issues dangerous, I feel compelled to expose it for the falsehood that it is.

Don`t you believe people should resist dangerous teachings if those teachings are being translated into an agenda and being pushed by them to be codified and affect your society -- particularly if you don`t agree with them or accpet them as being based on a God you think does not really exist? I do. Why don`t you?

 

[Mike Cash]

On a thought, it is weak just to accuse someone of hatred when they merely point out errors.

Likewise it is rationally bereft to confuse conjecture for accusation.

But the Bible brings out that kind of behaviour in their followers, as we have already seen here.

Of whom do you speak, precisely?

Someone disagrees with it and points out the errors? -- Best to call them filled with hate instead of addressing the points.

Someone categorically stated you're filled with hate? Or someone offered conjecture and invited clarification?

You know, employing such hyperbole and leaping to conclusions really does little to engender civil discussion.

Perhaps WOGers are inclined to do that because their belief system which draws from the WOG has a lot of things to hate in it. Hatred is a disease of the mind that spreads. If you read enough of it, I guess it gets into you.

Regarding that last bit.....who is it who has been citing chapter and verse throughout the thread? Surely you must be reading it yourself. Have you read enough of it to fill yourself with hatred yet? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Mike Cash]

I feel compelled to expose it for the falsehood that it is.

Ah, what I call "reverse proselytizing".

Don`t you believe people should resist dangerous teachings if those teachings are being translated into an agenda and being pushed by them to be codified and affect your society -- particularly if you don`t agree with them or accpet them as being based on a God you think does not really exist? I do. Why don`t you?

The supposition in the last sentence in that paragraph contradicts the premise of the first. More leaping to conclusions regarding my opinions when I have not said one word about them.

Are you a registered voter? Do you vote?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro: The Bible- especially if you look in Genesis- is not a literal science text, and things like it's taxonomy of animals were not based upon our post-Darwin biology. It doesn't make them invalid (unless you are a scientist...and try to use it for science)- it is just a different way of understanding the natural world. If you get hung up on little tid bits like this, you are missing the whole point and need to find a different book to read. ...I have heard fellow Christians suggest that the Bible is 100% scientifically accurate, and historical...etc...and similar claims have been made by Muslims about the Quran. I think what you have is exactly the text that God wants you to have.

It doesn`t matter what Darwin tells us. The point is that BGod (actually ancient man who attributed his own ignorance to a nonexisting BGod) did not know biology. He had some idea that birds were not insects and rightfully so separated them by grouping them in another bunch for orders. But, if He knew insects were not birds, then why did He not know that bats were not birds? Obviosly flying could not be the determinant for if it were, then insects would have been bunched with all flying things.

Yes, the ol?f don`t get hungup on the ?gtid-bits.?h -- ?gHoney, I love you. And yes, all my cheating around on you and the lies that you have now discovered, pales in comparison to all the times and fun we`ve had together. What? How many times have I lied to you? Hmmmm....hard to count. Lots. What? How many times have I purposely mislead you? Hmmmm...lots. But, Hon, don`t get caught up on the ?gtid-bits?h or the details. I love you. I am still true and never lie and our love is as perfect as it was on the day we married.?h Most reasonable people would not accept this argument, but that is exactly what Biblicists/agologists are asserting when they say, ?gDon`t get hung up on the tidbits.?h A strong person would send a person packing when such an enormity of the deception is realized. But, often like a spouse which is being cheated on says, ?gI knew something was wrong, I just didn`t want to face it and admit that I was being cheated on and lied to. I just closed my eyes.?h

What we have is exactly the text institutions want to have and want you to have -- one that lends itself to being interpreted anyway one wants to promote its own belief for their own profit.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Are you a registered voter? Do you vote?

Sure, I vote. And, I also speak against those things I feel are wrong so that others who are undecided may be swayed. More swayed, more strength at the voting booths.

 

[Mike Cash]

What parts of the Angry Bible God agenda do you find that people are attempting to insert into your society? And in what ways?

 

[Doc]

This guy lives in the Bible Belt doesn't he?

Doc :wave:

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What parts of the Angry Bible God agenda do you find that people are attempting to insert into your society? And in what ways?

That is not the topic of the thread, is it? The topic of the thread is: The Bible is not the Word of God.

If you think it is, then please respond with the reasons/verses for which which support your claim. I am putting forth the reasons which give it up as falsehood. Please feel free to counter those reasons if you think it possible.

If you want to go off on a tangent, then please make a separate thread for that. I already told you why I speak against the Bible. If that isn`t enough and one question away from the topic leads to another and then another, well then... that is going off on a tangent and I prefer not to.

Go ahead and make another thread and if I feel interested in posting in it, I will. IF not, then it will hang there and perhaps someone else will.

 

[Mike Cash]

That is not the topic of the thread, is it? The topic of the thread is: The Bible is not the Word of God.

So you are free to bring it up in your posts, but others are invited to go elsewhere? Nice.

The topic of the thread also was not "The Nature of God", yet you have felt free to expound on that and even make baseless assumptions regarding my opinion of same.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Nothing to add really, I just wanted to say that I think SVF raises some good points, although as Mycernius says, a lot has been covered in Mars Man's thread. I particularly like the analogy of the estate agent though (post #29) - I'd like to see someone pick some specific errors in the reasoning there.