Religion is concrete, while agnosticism/atheism is abstract

He won't have a good answer to this. To him, genocide is wrong only when another faith's deity orders it

 

Well...at least he has a few instances to pick from without choosing someones elses.

 

History is what history is. The problem in deciphering history from a philosophical POV is this question: What caused history to be what history is? What was the initiating factor in all of history?

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a religious text that doesn't contradict another in some way. It is the faithful who harmonise such texts by coming up with doctrines and apologetics to interpret the texts in question in a way that, in their view, does away with the contradictions. In the process, I they also end up defining their god accordingly.

But again, there is no objective standard. There is no god to go observe or ask questions of. We have only what people claim.

 

Maybe, but we are talking about history and a people who actually existed.

 

Yes we are. On the other side of that coin, is this: We are also talking about interpretations of what was taking place with those people as related by other people... subjective renderings from the minds of others.

 

Judaism took some of its beliefs from other religions. Christianity changes the meaning of Scriptures in the Tanakh, and Islam uses both with new meanings. Jehovahs Witnesses use their own interpretation. The Mormons use their interpretation. God must be highly confused.

 

So 2 peace treaties are subject to interpretations. A copy of this peace treaty, by the way, is displayed in the UN building in New York. So letters between the two nations on subjects of interest between them are 'subjective renderings from the minds of others. The greatest chariot battle of all time, recorded by both sides is 'subjective renderings.....'.
The only subjective renderings might be in the recording of the result of battles in history - which often did not agree.

 

If it's the same author, specifically God, then there will be no contradiction.

The Bible wasn't created by somebody coming up with doctrines to interpret. The
Bible is the Word of God.

Yes there is a God and he's given us his word.

 

Yes indeed they are subjective renderings UNLESS you are claiming that the contents of those writings just magically appeared on paper without any physical or subjective effort on the part of a human man or woman.

 

The Bible is the Word of God.

Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Ephesians 6:17 - And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God:

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the
joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

You are quoting the bible to show that the bible is the word of God? Why would you do that?

 

Different context and these are New Testament times.

 

Oh...I'm sorry, different God, Different times.....it gets a bit confusing.

 

There are no contradictions in the Bible. You've yet to provide one.

Abraham bought his plot from a Hittite and you were provided accurate evidence.

You're still incorrect.

They reappeared in Babylon. They were around during the time of Abraham

Still no contradiction.

You're opinion was not worth taking as evidence and especially since you have been wrong
on all accounts and have been provided evidence to show you your errors.

Chapter and verse. Oh, you haven't one?

No contradiction.

Yes, that's quite obvious.

We're discussing the Bible and not your opinion.

Still no contradiction

Incorrect. It's about Jesus.

Still no contradictions.

 

The book of Revelation has a little different take on that matter.
" Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

Whose name is called 'the Word of God.' When something is called (in that era of time), it was spoken.

BTW: I like those three verses you selected... they emphasize what I have stated.

 

No I'm not. What purpose would that serve anyway? Seriously?

No he isn't. He's pray in faith to a god that Mohammad created.

Not true. I look at this rationally. Practitioners of that "religion of peace" don't
pray to the same God as the Jews and Christians.

 

Not true. Many have tried to create this myth and it simply isn't true.

Not they don't. There is no reason to change the Scripture of the
Old Testament. It would serve no purpose.

Yes, I will accept that. Mohammad certainly distorted the Old Testament.

They aren't Christian. They are a cult. Their new world translation isn't a
translation. It's a commentary and their use of the Greek is totally off the wall.

Mormans aren't Christiian either. Like that "religion of peace" they worship a
god that Joseph Smith invented and their text comes from some Egyptian
plates that he bought from a circus barker.

God has no reason to be confused.

 

Actually it's not a different take. Jesus is the Word of God and God's word is the word of God.

Yes, God definitely wrote, dictated, etc... what was to be written.

 

Then why did they make a "New" testament...I guess it serves no purpose?

 

I think you may be confusing the subjective reaction of individuals believing in theological claims with being concrete. All subjective reactions are not concrete, even the subjective personal reaction for those who are not believer. Subjective reactions are not worth making a basis whether to believe or to not believe.

Sure that religious person has a concrete perspective about the meaning of life but can you honestly say that their meaning of life fits your life and what you need and want for your life? You said you are an agnostic so by default it wouldn't work for you would it?

I am a non-believer and I have to say I don't miss the days of being able to be convinced that reality is defined by the religious texts I read or the interpretations of those texts I heard or the philosophical reasoning that was a constant exercise to keep the belief in that reality. The only thing I can say I miss is the belief in life continuing after we die and being sure I would be able to see those I love beyond this mortal world and this is only expected because we deal with our mortality daily. We want to self-sustain, we have a strong kinship with our pact and we'll be dealing with this for our entire life.

 

Truly you should study the scripture more ... though you have the basic information correct, you are skewing the message by saying that what God "dictated" is exactly what is written in the 'Bible'. On another point, the Revelation indicates by using the terms He and His which would indicate a person... not a 'book' or 'compiled writings'. Is your 'Bible' covered in blood? Was Jesus during His Earthly ministry called the Word of God? Was the 'Bible' in its current form at the time of the writing of the Revelation? Your current point of view has way too many holes in it.

 

Evidence? I see no evidence.

Suggest you study ancient history. They were part of the late Babylonian Empire.

You want evidence for the Hittites?

The Hittites: The History and Legacy of the Bronze Age's Forgotten Empire. by Charles Rivers Editors

The Hittites - The story of a Forgotten Empire. A.H.Sayce

The Ancient World of Egyptian and Hittite Empires to 1000BCE. by J.B. Bury

The Secrets of the Hittites. The discovery of an ancient Empire. by C.W.Ceram.


I notice you missed the unnecessary journey into Egypt.

Nothing you posted is of any consequence as you have proved you have little knowledge beyond your indoctrinal
beliefs.

You have no proof Abraham existed.
You have proved your knowledge of the Hittites is practically non-existent.

.

In which case we have another contradiction. Compare Hosea 11:1 with Exodus 4:22. The latter is in the days of the Exodus, and Hosea is obviously referring to this. If you want to contradict this and replace Israel with Jesus then we have another contradiction in the Bible.

You are clearly confused as you keep quoting me with your posts.

 

This assertion is no more true than a Muslims's assertions about Allah and Muhammad.

 

Not they but He, as in God. Because it's a New Covenant.

When understood it serves a great purpose.