Home   Forum   Help Media Centre Search Calendar Shop Gallery Login Register   *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 19, 2017, 14:14:13

Login with username, password and session length
Recent
[Yesterday at 22:23:02]

[July 07, 2017, 13:48:54]

[July 07, 2017, 13:43:55]

[July 07, 2017, 13:30:03]

[July 07, 2017, 13:24:22]
Twitter
Permissions

Last 10 Shouts:
July 30, 2017, 18:36:43
DEFINITIVE NEW NAME CITIZENS!!!!
THE IMPERIAL KINGDOM OF THE FREE LOVELY LOVELAND!!! SHORTENED AS LOVELYLAND!!!
July 20, 2017, 18:51:10
(Freelove just didn't feel right.)
July 20, 2017, 18:50:37
(yeah new name...)
July 20, 2017, 18:50:18
HEIL LOVELAND!
July 20, 2017, 18:49:56
AS OF THE DENONYM IT SHALL BE LOVEDICS( NO BAD PUNS).
July 20, 2017, 18:48:59
THE CITIZEN WITH THE FUNNIEST/EPICEST/WTF-EST/POPULAREST( EXCUSE MY SO RUBBISH EXPRESSIONS) SHALL BE ELECTED GREAT COUNT, ALL BY LOVELIANS/FREELANDICS!!
July 20, 2017, 18:47:04
I THEREBY SUGGEST THE COUNT AND DE FACTO RULER OF LOVELY/FREELAND SHALL BE CHOSEN BY LOVELIANS/FREELANDICS !
July 20, 2017, 18:44:58
OUR CONSTITUTION! MOTIVATED BY OUR GOODWILLED AND FRIENDLY VALUES SHALL ALWAYS PROTECTS POPULAR POWER!!
July 20, 2017, 18:43:32
WITH ABSOLUTELY NO GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCE ON IT!
July 20, 2017, 18:42:46
OUR EMPIRE IS TRULY MONARCHIC YET DEMOCRATIC AND FREE! OUR COUNT SHALL BE ELECTED BY POPULAR POLLS!
Members
Total Members: 563
Latest: Allonsy182
Stats
Total Posts: 244580
Total Topics: 5053
Online Today: 16
Online Ever: 137
(July 20, 2014, 20:19:05)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 9
Total: 9
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Throw a random Bible verse  (Read 5134 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« on: January 31, 2008, 13:08:55 »

Since matt insists upon using quotes from his holy book to back up his claims despite many a protest on the part of the rest of us poor bunch, it's time to get REVENGE! Pick a random Bible verse, chuck it at matt, and see what the poor sucker has to say for himself. An example to start:

Isiah 44:7 "Who is a god like me? That god should come and prove it. Let him tell and explain all that has happened since I set up my ancient people. He should also tell what will happen in the future."

That God of yours is a bloody hypocrite. He hasn't exactly proved his own existence, so how can he expect the other, equally non-existent gods to do the same, eh? Why are the other gods expected to explain away all the bad things that happened? Why is it that when suffering is blamed on God, his fanatic followers come up with many an explanation as to why he would allow such suffering, and yet God himself (according to this passage. I cba to get into the whole 'to what point is Bible written by man?' debate right now) is quick enough to lump the blame onto the other gods, and then deny their existence when their being worshipped doesn't suit him. The prophecies in the Bible have only come true with some liberal interpretations and a bit of meddling.

Rant example over. Now it's your turn!
Logged
Tom Dates
National Treasure
*****

Karma: -127
Offline Offline

Posts: 7340


Flat Earth Proponent


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2008, 13:30:24 »

Ahhh, I miss Christmas at the grandparents hotel, they had a Gideons bible in every room which made for great reading, specially all the bits about stoning people.
Leviticus and Deuteronomy FTW!

Especially "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, such as woolen and linen together", Deutoronomy, chapter 22 or 23 or something like that.
Logged

Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2008, 15:37:44 »

OK. Matt will take up the challenge BUT... A few ground rules.
1.Not ONE peep about long entry replies when I have to make up for years of Biblical ignorance. (I will assume this is based on a cultural gap, and a lack of opportunity and that all exchanges are for the purpose of "edification".)
2.NO more Mr. Nice Guy from me!  Hogwash and BS on your part is going to be called as that. (I have to overcome an accusation that I was not getting to the point.)
3. I am not going to try to prove anything to anyone.  I will only point out what the passages (probably) meant to the readers or audience to whom it was addressed, and maybe some background, and the purpose for which it was recorded. You don't have to believe it or agree with it, but that won't change its message.  i.e. According to the Old Testament there  is a very easy way to never get stoned.  And in spite of the prescribed discipline for the particular transgression one is so quick to call up, I can't remember any record of it ever having been carried out.
4.The number one rule about interpreting any passage is to see it in its context. And in the case of Steka's reference to Isaiah 44:7 that context isn't just chapter 44 of the book of Isaiah, but the whole history or the Jewish people; so get used to the idea I may have to "quote" a few verses. (or if you would prefer I could quote the source and/or give you a link.)
5. You are not allowed to judge the hisoricity or believability of an event based on your assumption that it cannot happen.  The record and the testimony says it did.  If you argue that because something hasn't happened to you, therefore it cannot happen to anyone, you are aguing from the perspective of "experience" or in this case "lack of it" and that is just as false as someone arguing that because something DID happen to them, then it MUST happen to everyone.
6. Allowances must be made for a 7 hour time difference, AND the fact that my answers may consume most of my evenin'g in being put together and edited.
7. We will discuss "issues" and "views" and how we might have come to them, but we will not attack the person for holding them. 
8. All of the above are subject to change without prior notice, and any others I think will serve my purpose may be added without prior warning!

   
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2008, 16:51:12 »

OI! Who said YOU get to make up the 'rules' as you go along? My thread, MY rules! And Bo: NO scamming IOUs like that! Angry Just you wait till I'm made a mod...

Oh, alright then. You can have your precious rules. But only because I can see a few loopholes in them, which go as follows:

1. A 'peep' implies some sort of noise, so we can still moan in the depths of cyberspace as long as we don't vocalise these complaints (eg by talking as we type). So I accept this rule, since we can still POST whinging about your long posts, for the stated reason.

2. You mean that you've been Mr. Nice Guy up till now? Yeah, I see what you mean. Now you're going to morph into one of those Bible-bashing angrily agigtated rambling and ranting evangelicals, like the ones that those of us who have a telly can occasionally glimpse in footage of America. Since most of what I post is neither BS nor hogwash, but just complete and utter codswallop, I'm fine with this rule.

3. Erm ... is there any point to this if you're not trying to prove that you're right and all the non-believers are wrong? If not, then I can always get a mod to delete this thread. But to the loophole: if you're not trying to prove anything, then are we to assume that there is nowt that can be proved?

4. I am NOT reading the WHOLE of the OT just because I quoted a random verse from it AS AN EXAMPLE! I can just about stretch to chapter 44 on a good day, but the whole of the OT?!? OK, you can quote away. But remember that I started this thread in response to the reaction of many other Lovelians to your persistance in quoting the Bible as an opportunity for them to get revenge by delving into your territory on our conditions. Then you went and swung everything in your favour...

5. Are we allowed to question the possibility of the occurence of an event based upon what we perceive to be the laws of the universe in any way at all then? Or do we have to accept that if the Bible says that a beetle levitated, grew to 1000 times its original size, breathed fire, gave Ms. Bloggs an unscheduled haircut then morphed into a pink unicorn, declared that God had made this happen because Ms. Bloggs' hair was causing her to be too vain before galloping off into the horizon to live happily ever after, then this must've happened? Or are we allowed to disscuss the possiblity that the beetle may represent the common, seemingly harmless person who is made so angry by the evils of society that they 'breathe fire', and that the breathing of fire (ie sorting things out via action and violence rather than words and disscussion) can sometimes be the solution, though not always the ideal one? Or are we even allowed to say "that's a load of rubbish. It couldn't possibly have happened, for the simple reason that beetles don't just randomly levitate, breath fire, then turn into talking pink unicorns"?

6. OK, allowance made. Btw, if you want to set the times on these boards to Canucki time, you can do so by going to your profile and clicking on 'board layout preferences' (or something like that) at the side.

7. Bah! That means that my rivalry with you personally cannot continue on this thread. Where will the fun be without it? However, the loophole I see here is that we could attack PEOPLE generally who hold these views, just not the person specifically who happens to be representing and defending them here.

8. Ah. I should really have taken this into account BEFORE pointing out all the loopholes in your rules...
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 16:59:57 by steka » Logged
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2008, 20:52:19 »

OI! Who said YOU get to make up the 'rules' as you go along? My thread, MY rules! And Bo: NO scamming IOUs like that!  Just you wait till I'm made a mod...

It may be your thread and your rules, but it is my ball and if you don't do it my way I'll take the ball and go home, and you all will be bored like you were until I gave you something to do!


Oh, alright then. You can have your precious rules. But only because I can see a few loopholes in them, which go as follows:

1. A 'peep' implies some sort of noise, so we can still moan in the depths of cyberspace as long as we don't vocalise these complaints (eg by talking as we type). So I accept this rule, since we can still POST whinging about your long posts, for the stated reason.

This is a true statement. As is true about all rules, rules have never prevented anyone from doing anything.  The only thing about a rule is that if you BY YOUR OWN FREE WILL choose to break it, you have of YOUR OWN FREE WILL opted to face the consequences.  So you can whine all you want (is that the same as whinging?)

2. You mean that you've been Mr. Nice Guy up till now? Yeah, I see what you mean. Now you're going to morph into one of those Bible-bashing angrily agigtated rambling and ranting evangelicals, like the ones that those of us who have a telly can occasionally glimpse in footage of America. Since most of what I post is neither BS nor hogwash, but just complete and utter codswallop, I'm fine with this rule.

I don't have a TV (telly) and am not exposed to those evangelicals, but I don't think I will come across like them at all.  Being Canadian we are much more "refined".  Whereas they are the type to slash and slice and leave blood, I intend to be much more guarded and just leave "bruises" where it won't show, and hopefully my vicitms won't even realize they have been struck until a day or two later when the soreness settles in.  Here is a quote I found NOT FROM THE BIBLE, and while I was looking it up for the latter part, note what I found as a first part:  "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."  Just wait until you see what you get when "the worm has turned".

3. Erm ... is there any point to this if you're not trying to prove that you're right and all the non-believers are wrong? If not, then I can always get a mod to delete this thread. But to the loophole: if you're not trying to prove anything, then are we to assume that there is nowt that can be proved?

The point is if I were a pseudo scientist I would be trying to prove something, but since my role here is only as a teacher, (or wannabe) my task is simply to explore a theory or two, which to date some "students" may not have even heard of, let alone explored, and if they are serious and honest scholars, they owe it to themselves to at least pick up a passing aquaintence with the thought.  With my proposed model, I expect that I would get a lot of those "American telly 'evangelists' to take exception to my explanations... and for the same reason that the pseudo scientists won't look at them.  They might find their view isn't as strong as they think it is... or while it may be "correct" in the conclusion, the process and methodology of how they got there is wrong.

4. I am NOT reading the WHOLE of the OT just because I quoted a random verse from it AS AN EXAMPLE! I can just about stretch to chapter 44 on a good day, but the whole of the OT?!? OK, you can quote away. But remember that I started this thread in response to the reaction of many other Lovelians to your persistance in quoting the Bible as an opportunity for them to get revenge by delving into your territory on our conditions. Then you went and swung everything in your favour...

OK the option is I don't do long quotes but you are then faced with having to "accept by faith" that what I summarize I have done truly. But if you have formed an opinion based on hearsay, and I try to correct it and you have only my "hearsay" then how do you know whom to believe?
But remember also that the original objection to the quote was because it was believed I was using a text out of context, or was using it to "prove" that just because the Bible said there was a God, there IS a God.  But that is NOT how I will be using the quotes.  I will say, "What you think the Bible says is Not what it says" or "It says it in this context see? and therefore is open to this interpretation," or "it is consistent with the same message given x number of years later, and in a completely different setting"


5. Are we allowed to question the possibility of the occurence of an event based upon what we perceive to be the laws of the universe in any way at all then? Or do we have to accept that if the Bible says that a beetle levitated, grew to 1000 times its original size, breathed fire, gave Ms. Bloggs an unscheduled haircut then morphed into a pink unicorn, declared that God had made this happen because Ms. Bloggs' hair was causing her to be too vain before galloping off into the horizon to live happily ever after, then this must've happened? Or are we allowed to disscuss the possiblity that the beetle may represent the common, seemingly harmless person who is made so angry by the evils of society that they 'breathe fire', and that the breathing of fire (ie sorting things out via action and violence rather than words and disscussion) can sometimes be the solution, though not always the ideal one? Or are we even allowed to say "that's a load of rubbish. It couldn't possibly have happened, for the simple reason that beetles don't just randomly levitate, breath fire, then turn into talking pink unicorns"?

Not only are you allowed to question this sort of thing, I may be the first to suggest the alternative, BUT you then cannot turn on my approach as say "Oh well, you see, now he is just trying to explain the difficult away."  This is the second law of interpretation (If putting it into context is the first) and that is to recognize the kind of writing it is coming from, or what kind of event it is.  If the passage is written by a Jew, with an eastern mind set, then all the explaining in the world won't get to the truth if I don't understand something of their style of writing, the use of chiasmus, or hyperbole, the employment of numbers to represent certain things, or sets and cycles etc.  In your example above, you have obviously confused Babylonian, Greek and Chinese mythology with the Bible, but "you ain't seen nothing yet" until you get to a book like Ezekiel, where he saw a "wheel within a wheel a turnin...way in de middle of de air"  

6. OK, allowance made. Btw, if you want to set the times on these boards to Canucki time, you can do so by going to your profile and clicking on 'board layout preferences' (or something like that) at the side.

The point of this rule is just to explain that when I finally DO get to comment I may have 15 "challenges" to meet and to do so may mean the response to the first one will be 15 entries away. 
 
7. Bah! That means that my rivalry with you personally cannot continue on this thread. Where will the fun be without it? However, the loophole I see here is that we could attack PEOPLE generally who hold these views, just not the person specifically who happens to be representing and defending them here.

The loophole is we can say "What an absolutely idiotic idea" but I can't say you are an absolute idiot".  Or I could say, "How did you come to that idiotic conclusion?"  And do remember my "Number one rule as a teacher": IF I ask "what do you think?" or you say "But I think...", I can never say you are wrong.  I can hardly say you don't think what you have just told me you do,  can I?
But I can think you are mistaken in your conclusion, and try to find out what misinformation or lack of information has caused you to come to that conclusion.
YOU could probably continue to get away with your personal rivalry because: i. you can express it in Britian-eze and I won't recognize it, or ii. I will conclude "Oh that is just Steka, and not to be taken too seriously.  or iii. I am devoloping a thick skin and can repel the personal attacks much as Superman is unphazed by any weapon (except kryptonite.) At least that was his state back when I stopped reading his adventures.
 

8. Ah. I should really have taken this into account BEFORE pointing out all the loopholes in your rules...

I have learned this escapism from you and your appendices to copyright statements etc.

I am going to take up your Isaiah 44 reference in a separate entry and probably be a bit "in depth" because I will use it as an example of how any literary criticism must be approached, or if you will,- how any historic document must be analysed.  Including yesterday's newspaper telling you about local or world events. 
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 21:11:11 by Matt633 » Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2008, 22:40:33 »

Before reading this "response" read the previous entry where I clarify "THE RULES" that I put forth.

Isiah 44:7 "Who is a god like me? That god should come and prove it. Let him tell and explain all that has happened since I set up my ancient people. He should also tell what will happen in the future."

Quote
That God of yours is a bloody hypocrite. He hasn't exactly proved his own existence, so how can he expect the other, equally non-existent gods to do the same, eh?


First of all, confining ourselves for context only to Isaiah 44 we will see that this above statement is FALSE.
see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2044;&version=78;

The passage is given as though it it God Himself speaking to the people of Israel.  He is not blaming these other gods for bad things. He is in fact saying that IF they could do anything to prove their existence it would be remarkable BECAUSE they are NO gods to begin with.  They are idols made by the people who worship them, and he points out the irony that the same log from which they make the idol is also used for cooking. So, he was not expecting them to prove anything because they never could.  Furthermore, the Bible consistently condemned idolatry, not because there were other gods to worship and God wanted his people to worship him instead, but rather because the people "invented" gods to worship rather than submit to the ONE TRUE GOD.  (The same issue as today.)  The "religion" of these other gods, was the enslavement, and Jehovah , the LORD ALMIGHTY wanted them delivered from the pagan practices that made demands of them that He did not.  (Where did God, in this passage or any other "lump the blame onto the other gods?) 
The equally ridiculous statement that he "hasn't exactly proven his own existence" is contradicted from verse 1 onwards. 
To whom is the book of Isaiah written? Clearly to "his people Israel? What is the theme? (see verses 21 to 22) They are his people but they have gone "a whoring" after these false gods, and God is calling them back to himself, promising forgiveness and restoration.  As to "proving" himself, this is exactly what the verses immediately preceding verse 7 and following are about.  They declare that he has been and is their KING, and their REDEEMER, and he refers to "what has happened since I established my ancient people." 
So Isaiah was beginning his "ministry" around 740 BC, and Moses collected together the history stories, of Genesis 1 through to his time as leader of the Israelites around 1446 BC.  So since the people of Israel had a written record of their history of about 700 years it was easily authenticated right to the time of Isaiah, that the claims God was making about his care, and the trustworthiness of prophecy and its fulfillment was immediate.  If the nation did not have "proof" that satisfied them, they would have easily and readily said, "we haven't seen any evidence of this care".  Furthermore, while what Moses recorded of Genesis 1 through Exodus 2 must have come from "revelation" and "oral tradition" there is no reason to discount the accuracy of the oral tradition and history because even in modern times the historical records of people relying on the stories handed down by "the fathers" has been proven to be virtually "unchanged" and can be verified as true.  But even if it were uncheckable, when it comes to the book of Exodus, and the history as written by Moses we come to a first person account, and events that are witnessed by approximately 1 million people.  These people knew that what Moses wrote about the plagues in Egypt were true, what he wrote about crossing the Red (or Reed) sea was true. What happened at the mountain when the commandments were given were as true as the not so nice account of their destruction when they made the golden calf. When it says God sent a strong wind and blew in quail to feed them, they know it happened.  It doesn't matter that the mudslide 5 miles up the river may have caused the water from flowing in the Jordan, The fact that it happened when they got to its shore is still miraculous. All this is part of their history.  To them there was no question that God had been proving himself over and over, for at least 700 years.  If it were not "proven" then the argument that Isaiah makes to trust Him to keep on proving himself would be a mockery.  In other words he wouldn't say "prove me" if he hadn't already proven himself, and it they would not acknowledge that and expect him to prove himself in days to come.  AND contrary to your supposition THEY understood that prophecies very definitely were made and made in such a way that they could not be faked in their fulfillment.  The only way anyone can argue that prophecies were manipulated into fulfilment is to say the writings were written after the fact and then "predated" to make it look like it was a prophecy.  That  is such a tranceparent and blatant falsehood that no serious scholar entertains it at all.  Rather to accept the fact that "revelation" does make for prophetic statements, and then apply the laws of probability to even the smallest number to be fulfilled with the detail in which they are known to be fulfilled, staggers the mind.  But skeptics cannot be convinced. And in keeping with not trying to prove anything, I can only remind you that to the people to whom the Prophecy of Isaiah was directed, THEY knew whether or not what he was saying should be accepted as true or not. 
The people who came out of the wilderness, and into the promised land had lived through the Proof, they walked across the Jordan on dry land in flood season, they saw the battles turn in their favour, and their children and their children continued to live in the expectation and realization of the miraculous. These are eyewitness accounts and are as Worthy of acceptance as anything you see or read in a court of law or a newpaper. (Or more so) The witnesses had nothing to prove in any of the accounts.  They were as "unbelieving" as any modern day skeptic.  It was because it was "super- natural" that they made note of it.  The humdrum they didn't bother to mention.  "News today is only "news" because it is considered "out of the ordinary. No one is likely to record the number of times you walk or drive to work, BUT if you are involved in something unusual, it becomes "news". The history of the Jews is a history of God intervening in the affairs of man, and of him "proving" himself to those he calls "his people" ... in the Old Testament, and continues in the New Testament and into the 21st century as he continues to prove himself to "his people."
Because you haven't let God prove himself to you does not in any way diminish the "proof" he has shown to others. 

 
 Why are the other gods expected to explain away all the bad things that happened? Why is it that when suffering is blamed on God, his fanatic followers come up with many an explanation as to why he would allow such suffering, and yet God himself (according to this passage. I cba to get into the whole 'to what point is Bible written by man?' debate right now) is quick enough to lump the blame onto the other gods, and then deny their existence when their being worshipped doesn't suit him. The prophecies in the Bible have only come true with some liberal interpretations and a bit of meddling.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 22:46:12 by Matt633 » Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Toaster
Speaker of Sense.
janitorial staff
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 17
Offline Offline

Posts: 4801



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2008, 12:02:02 »

OK. Matt will take up the challenge BUT... A few ground rules.
1.Not ONE peep about long entry replies when I have to make up for years of Biblical ignorance. (I will assume this is based on a cultural gap, and a lack of opportunity and that all exchanges are for the purpose of "edification".)
2.NO more Mr. Nice Guy from me!  Hogwash and BS on your part is going to be called as that. (I have to overcome an accusation that I was not getting to the point.)
3. I am not going to try to prove anything to anyone.  I will only point out what the passages (probably) meant to the readers or audience to whom it was addressed, and maybe some background, and the purpose for which it was recorded. You don't have to believe it or agree with it, but that won't change its message.  i.e. According to the Old Testament there  is a very easy way to never get stoned.  And in spite of the prescribed discipline for the particular transgression one is so quick to call up, I can't remember any record of it ever having been carried out.
4.The number one rule about interpreting any passage is to see it in its context. And in the case of Steka's reference to Isaiah 44:7 that context isn't just chapter 44 of the book of Isaiah, but the whole history or the Jewish people; so get used to the idea I may have to "quote" a few verses. (or if you would prefer I could quote the source and/or give you a link.)
5. You are not allowed to judge the hisoricity or believability of an event based on your assumption that it cannot happen.  The record and the testimony says it did.  If you argue that because something hasn't happened to you, therefore it cannot happen to anyone, you are aguing from the perspective of "experience" or in this case "lack of it" and that is just as false as someone arguing that because something DID happen to them, then it MUST happen to everyone.
6. Allowances must be made for a 7 hour time difference, AND the fact that my answers may consume most of my evenin'g in being put together and edited.
7. We will discuss "issues" and "views" and how we might have come to them, but we will not attack the person for holding them.
8. All of the above are subject to change without prior notice, and any others I think will serve my purpose may be added without prior warning!

Eh?
Logged

MP1032844
Wish hard enough, and God might make it stop...
bovinejumpsuit
Guest
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2008, 12:03:26 »

OK. Matt will take up the challenge BUT... A few ground rules.
1.Not ONE peep about long entry replies when I have to make up for years of Biblical ignorance. (I will assume this is based on a cultural gap, and a lack of opportunity and that all exchanges are for the purpose of "edification".)
2.NO more Mr. Nice Guy from me!  Hogwash and BS on your part is going to be called as that. (I have to overcome an accusation that I was not getting to the point.)
3. I am not going to try to prove anything to anyone.  I will only point out what the passages (probably) meant to the readers or audience to whom it was addressed, and maybe some background, and the purpose for which it was recorded. You don't have to believe it or agree with it, but that won't change its message.  i.e. According to the Old Testament there  is a very easy way to never get stoned.  And in spite of the prescribed discipline for the particular transgression one is so quick to call up, I can't remember any record of it ever having been carried out.
4.The number one rule about interpreting any passage is to see it in its context. And in the case of Steka's reference to Isaiah 44:7 that context isn't just chapter 44 of the book of Isaiah, but the whole history or the Jewish people; so get used to the idea I may have to "quote" a few verses. (or if you would prefer I could quote the source and/or give you a link.)
5. You are not allowed to judge the hisoricity or believability of an event based on your assumption that it cannot happen.  The record and the testimony says it did.  If you argue that because something hasn't happened to you, therefore it cannot happen to anyone, you are aguing from the perspective of "experience" or in this case "lack of it" and that is just as false as someone arguing that because something DID happen to them, then it MUST happen to everyone.
6. Allowances must be made for a 7 hour time difference, AND the fact that my answers may consume most of my evenin'g in being put together and edited.
7. We will discuss "issues" and "views" and how we might have come to them, but we will not attack the person for holding them.
8. All of the above are subject to change without prior notice, and any others I think will serve my purpose may be added without prior warning!

Eh?
i have already had to delete 2 pages of quotes on this thread toaster, don't make me do it again
Logged
Toaster
Speaker of Sense.
janitorial staff
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 17
Offline Offline

Posts: 4801



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2008, 12:25:52 »

OK. Matt will take up the challenge BUT... A few ground rules.
1.Not ONE peep about long entry replies when I have to make up for years of Biblical ignorance. (I will assume this is based on a cultural gap, and a lack of opportunity and that all exchanges are for the purpose of "edification".)
2.NO more Mr. Nice Guy from me!  Hogwash and BS on your part is going to be called as that. (I have to overcome an accusation that I was not getting to the point.)
3. I am not going to try to prove anything to anyone.  I will only point out what the passages (probably) meant to the readers or audience to whom it was addressed, and maybe some background, and the purpose for which it was recorded. You don't have to believe it or agree with it, but that won't change its message.  i.e. According to the Old Testament there  is a very easy way to never get stoned.  And in spite of the prescribed discipline for the particular transgression one is so quick to call up, I can't remember any record of it ever having been carried out.
4.The number one rule about interpreting any passage is to see it in its context. And in the case of Steka's reference to Isaiah 44:7 that context isn't just chapter 44 of the book of Isaiah, but the whole history or the Jewish people; so get used to the idea I may have to "quote" a few verses. (or if you would prefer I could quote the source and/or give you a link.)
5. You are not allowed to judge the hisoricity or believability of an event based on your assumption that it cannot happen.  The record and the testimony says it did.  If you argue that because something hasn't happened to you, therefore it cannot happen to anyone, you are aguing from the perspective of "experience" or in this case "lack of it" and that is just as false as someone arguing that because something DID happen to them, then it MUST happen to everyone.
6. Allowances must be made for a 7 hour time difference, AND the fact that my answers may consume most of my evenin'g in being put together and edited.
7. We will discuss "issues" and "views" and how we might have come to them, but we will not attack the person for holding them.
8. All of the above are subject to change without prior notice, and any others I think will serve my purpose may be added without prior warning!

Eh?
i have already had to delete 2 pages of quotes on this thread toaster, don't make me do it again

Sorry..
Logged

MP1032844
Wish hard enough, and God might make it stop...
bovinejumpsuit
Guest
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2008, 12:28:50 »

OK. Matt will take up the challenge BUT... A few ground rules.
1.Not ONE peep about long entry replies when I have to make up for years of Biblical ignorance. (I will assume this is based on a cultural gap, and a lack of opportunity and that all exchanges are for the purpose of "edification".)
2.NO more Mr. Nice Guy from me!  Hogwash and BS on your part is going to be called as that. (I have to overcome an accusation that I was not getting to the point.)
3. I am not going to try to prove anything to anyone.  I will only point out what the passages (probably) meant to the readers or audience to whom it was addressed, and maybe some background, and the purpose for which it was recorded. You don't have to believe it or agree with it, but that won't change its message.  i.e. According to the Old Testament there  is a very easy way to never get stoned.  And in spite of the prescribed discipline for the particular transgression one is so quick to call up, I can't remember any record of it ever having been carried out.
4.The number one rule about interpreting any passage is to see it in its context. And in the case of Steka's reference to Isaiah 44:7 that context isn't just chapter 44 of the book of Isaiah, but the whole history or the Jewish people; so get used to the idea I may have to "quote" a few verses. (or if you would prefer I could quote the source and/or give you a link.)
5. You are not allowed to judge the hisoricity or believability of an event based on your assumption that it cannot happen.  The record and the testimony says it did.  If you argue that because something hasn't happened to you, therefore it cannot happen to anyone, you are aguing from the perspective of "experience" or in this case "lack of it" and that is just as false as someone arguing that because something DID happen to them, then it MUST happen to everyone.
6. Allowances must be made for a 7 hour time difference, AND the fact that my answers may consume most of my evenin'g in being put together and edited.
7. We will discuss "issues" and "views" and how we might have come to them, but we will not attack the person for holding them.
8. All of the above are subject to change without prior notice, and any others I think will serve my purpose may be added without prior warning!

Eh?
i have already had to delete 2 pages of quotes on this thread toaster, don't make me do it again

Sorry..

you weren't to know
Logged
Lovely Lurker
Citizen
**

Karma: 50
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2008, 12:37:39 »

Looks interesting..
Logged
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2008, 15:59:53 »

*chases away all the quote spammers*  Angry Shoo!
Logged
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2008, 22:53:43 »

Our "Sever" has been out until after 11:30 p.m. both for my dial up at home and for our whole system at work, so I will have to get back to this tomorrow.  Hope you can all hold on that long for my words of wisdom.   Wink
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Toaster
Speaker of Sense.
janitorial staff
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 17
Offline Offline

Posts: 4801



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2008, 07:28:38 »

Our "Sever" has been out until after 11:30 p.m. both for my dial up at home and for our whole system at work, so I will have to get back to this tomorrow.  Hope you can all hold on that long for my words of wisdom.   Wink

Ha! Where's your god now then eh?!


Its 'server' btw...
Logged

MP1032844
Wish hard enough, and God might make it stop...
Bear
Lovely's Atheist Pope.
Patriot
***

Karma: 88
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 476



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2008, 07:52:51 »

Our "Sever" has been out until after 11:30 p.m. both for my dial up at home and for our whole system at work, so I will have to get back to this tomorrow.  Hope you can all hold on that long for my words of wisdom.   Wink

Ha! Where's your god now then eh?!


Its 'server' btw...

To be fair they do live next door to the States so they could have caught some spell badly disease from them. Don't get me started on colour and aluminium.
Logged

I am Bear hear me Growl!

Or maybe just mutter under my breath a bit.
Toaster
Speaker of Sense.
janitorial staff
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 17
Offline Offline

Posts: 4801



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2008, 08:40:09 »

Blame Canada!
Logged

MP1032844
Wish hard enough, and God might make it stop...
Bear
Lovely's Atheist Pope.
Patriot
***

Karma: 88
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 476



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2008, 08:41:52 »

Blame Canada!

That's what they'd say i'm sure.
Logged

I am Bear hear me Growl!

Or maybe just mutter under my breath a bit.
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2008, 11:18:21 »


Quote
Its 'server' btw...


Are you sure?
Since it was disconnected, "sever" seems more appropriate!
But I was typing it at 11:45 p.m.

Colour we do right.  And when you consider that my grandfather called it alumium, we get marks for anything that still lets you know we weren't talking about nickel.

Quote
Ha! Where's your god now then eh?!


God must have been in it, to keep me from doing a hasty reply mid-afternoon, if I had been able to read these while at work!!!  especially Giddsey's question on "Outwitt Matt" which see.
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2008, 16:22:56 »

Oh, I see. A God who can intervene to stop you from knocking up a hastily-written response where a more thought-out one is required and yet who in order to preserve our free will and maintain the constant laws of the universe (gravity etc) can't stop suffering, eh?

How am I supposed to argue against the existence of a God who is both immanent AND transcendent at the same time? If I go for the suffering argument, I'm told that if God were to intervene then it'd stop us from having free will, take away our own personal responsibility and cause so much chaos that it wouldn't be worth it. But if I ask 'what has this God ever done for us and to prove his own existence?', I'm told that, despite the restrictions of not being able to interfere with the laws of nature now, God was allowed to create the universe way back when, and that he still occasionally does miracles like making the lame walk and the blind see just to remind us that he's still watching and caring for us. How can I ever possibly win when the other side keeps shifting the goalposts like that? It's just not fair! Sad
Logged
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2008, 17:19:11 »

Oh, I see. A God who can intervene to stop you from knocking up a hastily-written response where a more thought-out one is required and yet who in order to preserve our free will and maintain the constant laws of the universe (gravity etc) can't stop suffering, eh?

FIRST YOU MUST WATCH THE ARGUMENT CAREFULLY.  You keep coming back to the cause and effect argument, but the statement that Toaster made was "
Quote
Ha! Where's your god now then eh?!"
  and my response was  "
Quote
God must have been in it
,"  NOT God must have caused it, but where was he IN it, and I am saying that for my sake, the delay has (possibly) turned out for "my good", because although the shut down meant there were things at work I couldn't do, (including read the comments by Giddsey or dash off a quick answer) there were other things I could accomplish. And then late, late at night when I did get the chance to read the comments, I had a night to sleep on it, and come up with the thoughts I did.  Whether or not they were "inspired" thoughts, I cannot say. But as an approach to any question, and this one in particular, I found it helpful just for my own sake to analyse and think through what Giddsey was trying to say.  And hopefully it will allow others to think through the kinds of things they also would think to ask, and consider if what they really want to know can be gotten to, with the way they are (or would) phrase the question. Not just in "religious" matters, but in every area.  The only way we can get the "right answer" is if we know how to ask the right question.  (You did get my reference to FREE WILL in there didn't you?  I put it in just for you!)

Quote
How am I supposed to argue against the existence of a God who is both immanent AND transcendent at the same time? If I go for the suffering argument, I'm told that if God were to intervene then it'd stop us from having free will, take away our own personal responsibility and cause so much chaos that it wouldn't be worth it. But if I ask 'what has this God ever done for us and to prove his own existence?', I'm told that, despite the restrictions of not being able to interfere with the laws of nature now, God was allowed to create the universe way back when, and that he still occasionally does miracles like making the lame walk and the blind see just to remind us that he's still watching and caring for us. How can I ever possibly win when the other side keeps shifting the goalposts like that? It's just not fair! Sad

There you go using the word "fair" again.  When you are dealing with GOD, you don't want fair!!! You want mercy!

Did it ever occur to you that God was "proving" himself to people who "expected proof" because he first demonstrated that "he was, and that he was a rewarder of those who diligently sought him?"  or that the testimony is that "those who earnestly seek will find".  Proof can't be given to someone who discounts the evidence presented. 

You can't even prove to someone else that you are who you say you are even if you present a photo ID. and call on "witnesses".  All you can prove is that you have a card with your picture on it and friends and witnesses who agree with you.  What with ID theft and scams, etc. a skeptic could put so many holes in your argument that in the end even you might not believe you are you!   

(I don't think God or his people have to "shift the goal posts".  I think this bunch of spectators need to realize this is a "wide game" and the object is to get to the other side.  ... on the "narrow road" if you will.)

You can't get much more transcendent and immanent than this:

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning."  "The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."


Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.383 seconds with 29 queries.