Originally posted by checkbaiter God is deliberately presented in the Old testament as harsh for good reason. The true nature of God is presented in the New Testament.
Why the difference? This is a study in itself and not problematic at all. But it entails many factors.
1. This has been dealt with here in the past. In short, people in the OT did not have holy spirit in them permanen ...[text shortened]... share in a post.
If you are really interested go to the link above and read, watch video's etc.
There must be a pill for this. I cannot imagine a talking cure being sufficient though it might just possibly be a useful adjunct.
Originally posted by sonhouse Man is very talented in story telling, quite capable of writing every word of the bible, the Qaran, the Vedas, and every other religious book on the planet.
No god was needed to get that stuff down. It was aimed at control. How do we control this unruly bunch of savages? AH, lets make a religion, throw in some miracles, hey what do you think Abraham?
No, man (40 different ones) over 1500 years would not be able to have a 66 different books
written about a single being God without a lot of things grossly wrong. I don't believe man
is that capable. Given that they were not a lot of things that they could have used to even
make the attempt, it isn't like all the other writings were available to compare with one an
other as time went by.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Hypothetically speaking (as I know theists enjoy hypotheticals) imagine God had never attempted to make contact with mankind. Let's assume that He is indeed all powerful and all loving etc, but that it was His plan from the outset to have no contact with us at all; no prophets, no miracles, no angels, no divinely inspired writings.
Imagine this Go ...[text shortened]... saged him? Would the way he was presented in the Old Testament for example please or dismay him?
Hypothetically speaking what if God choose the simpler times (less advance) to bring
about truths that anyone should be able to grasp, and yet there are those that reject the
reality of God that is before them. If God takes the time to make sure they see what it is
they need to for them to grasp God, and yet they reject Him, will he not be just in His
condemnation of those that refuse to see God?
Originally posted by KellyJay No, man (40 different ones) over 1500 years would not be able to have a 66 different books written about a single being God without a lot of things grossly wrong.
How old are the oldest existing copies of any of those 66 books? That's all we know about. Go back any further than the oldest existing copies and we have absolutely no idea what was or wasn't "grossly wrong" during the 1,500 years you mention.
Originally posted by KellyJay No, man (40 different ones) over 1500 years would not be able to have a 66 different books written about a single being God without a lot of things grossly wrong. I don't believe man is that capable.
I don't believe man is that capable.
This reminds me of the unintentionally funny 'proof' that some Christians offer for the validity of and supposedly divine inspiration behind the book of Revelation: ...'but, but, don't you see, it ties up the story so neatly and links back to the previous 65 books... come on now, no men would have been capable of doing that... 😀
Originally posted by FMF [b]I don't believe man is that capable.
This reminds me of the unintentionally funny 'proof' that some Christians offer for the validity of and supposedly divine inspiration behind the book of Revelation: ...'but, but, don't you see, it ties up the story so neatly and links back to the previous 65 books... come on now, no men would have been capable of doing that... 😀[/b]
If it were, indeed, as 'funny' as you claim it was, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble coming up with a link to such a post.
Originally posted by Suzianne If it were, indeed, as 'funny' as you claim it was, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble coming up with a link to such a post.
Go ahead, we're waiting...
"Unintentionally funny 'proof'" as in preposterous, utterly weak and unable to withstand scrutiny, so much so it makes one smile ~ it's the sort of thing that a believer can only try when talking to other believers who already agree and does not constitute "proof" beyond that, although it is undoubtedly offered in good faith and with sincerity ~ "unintentionally funny" in that sense.
So, the last time sonship came out with the 'it must have been divinely inspired because it connects to all the rest of the Bible that came before it' thing, I found it to be unintentionally funny. I'm not going to go looking for a link to when he's said it. You think Revelation is divinely inspired, so you aren't going to think "proof" of that kind is funny. But I do.
Originally posted by KellyJay Hypothetically speaking what if God choose the simpler times (less advance) to bring
about truths that anyone should be able to grasp, and yet there are those that reject the
reality of God that is before them. If God takes the time to make sure they see what it is
they need to for them to grasp God, and yet they reject Him, will he not be just in His
condemnation of those that refuse to see God?
Originally posted by KellyJay "Hypothetically speaking (as I know theists enjoy hypotheticals) imagine God had never attempted to make contact with mankind."
hmmm
I've just come to the sudden realisation that theists don't appreciate irony,.....or hypotheticals.
(Just to clarify, when I say that I don't like hypotheticals I haven't actually forgotten that I started a thread by saying 'hypothetically speaking' but was merely deploying whimsical irony intended to amuse or at the very least discombobulate).
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke I've just come to the sudden realisation that theists don't appreciate irony,.....or hypotheticals.
(Just to clarify, when I say that I don't like hypotheticals I haven't actually forgotten that I started a thread by saying 'hypothetically speaking' but was merely deploying whimsical irony intended to amuse or at the very least discombobulate).
I'm a great fan of irony, not hypotheticals so much but they do have their place in getting
points across. The bad thing is hypotheticals can also be far removed from the reality in
which they are being used in. One man's point of view they could be spot on and clearly
far removed from another's so they may not prove a point, but clearly be used to show
how far apart the two talking clearly are who are attempting to use them.
You do receive extra points for using the word, "discombobulate" 🙂
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke I've just come to the sudden realisation that theists don't appreciate irony,.....or hypotheticals.
(Just to clarify, when I say that I don't like hypotheticals I haven't actually forgotten that I started a thread by saying 'hypothetically speaking' but was merely deploying whimsical irony intended to amuse or at the very least discombobulate).
There needs to be an emoticon for that momentary glance at the camera like the characters in The Office do.
Originally posted by KellyJay No, man (40 different ones) over 1500 years would not be able to have a 66 different books
written about a single being God without a lot of things grossly wrong. I don't believe man
is that capable. Given that they were not a lot of things that they could have used to even
make the attempt, it isn't like all the other writings were available to compare with one an
other as time went by.
The bible DOES have things grossly wrong, like the Jon begat mo begat billy begat ruth begat begat blah blah blah. You know how Hinds used that one, to justify Earth only being 6000 years old. You have to give up our birthright, reason to go along with that nonsense.
Originally posted by sonhouse The bible DOES have things grossly wrong, like the Jon begat mo begat billy begat ruth begat begat blah blah blah. You know how Hinds used that one, to justify Earth only being 6000 years old. You have to give up our birthright, reason to go along with that nonsense.
God Returns
14 Apr '16 23:16
Back to Top