Part 39 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

In the Bible and in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud, only Jews are considered humans and men; Gentiles are beasts, snakes, pigs, dogs.

The creation story is about the establishment of the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews, who consider themselves are the owners of the world.

2 Esdras 6:55-59 (CEB) = "55 “I have said all these things before you, Lord, because you have said that you created the oldest age for our sake. 56 You have said that the other nations born of Adam are nothing, that they are like spit, and you have compared their abundance to a drop from a pitcher. 57 But look now, Lord! These nations that are valued as nothing rule over us and devour us, 58 while we, your people, whom you have called your oldest offspring, your one and only child, those who are zealous for you, your dearest ones, are handed over to them. 59 If the world was created for our sake, why don’t we possess our world as an inheritance? How long will this situation last?”

When the verse says that God created man in his own image, it is not talking about all people but only the Jews, who follow the laws of Moses.

 

As neither happened you need to question your understanding of the Bible.

 

Not really. Our higher nature is actually very accurate in general, and the best way to know the true nature of things. Otherwise we wouldn't know to love or have compassion, mercy and forgiveness. People can also be hobbled by a multitude of psychological, emotional and brain disorders, birth defects, and injuries. (ADHD, dementia, amnesia, and fluctuations in IQ.) So the brain is far less reliable on its own as an oracle.

It's curious to me that you reduce my mention of a rare spiritual visitation from God, to a mere everyday human feeling which can be misconstrued. And then render it even less by labeling it an "unsubstantiated neurological event." (Thanks for the vote of confidence.) Nevertheless, I'm left with that which I know. And you with that which you don't.

 

You don’t have any method of validating or verifying the experience. Should we believe everyone who has a vision from God? What does it mean when these visions conflict? What if the messages from the vision contradict the Bible? What if the vision justifies murdering children for example?

 

It's curious to me that you elevate a mere everyday human feeling which can be misconstrued into a rare spiritual visitation from God. The problem with your position is a lack of evidence. We KNOW that there are everyday human feelings that are not based in any kind of reality, deja vu, premonition, paranoia, hallucinations (auditory and visual) and a myriad of other "feelings" that are not real. What we lack is any verifiable "spiritual visitation from God". And yet here you are asking us to believe that YOUR feeling is an actual visitation from God while offering no reason to believe it is.

 

Jesus did not foretell the destruction of the Temple. 'Matthew's' gospel was written after the destruction of the Temple. 'Matthew' simply puts it in to make Jesus a prophet.
The rest of the sermon concerns the Hebrew people. Read Daniel 12 - quoted by Jesus. The abomination was the sacriligious sacrifice on the Temple altar by Antiochus Ephiphanes God is speaking to the Hebrews - if you believe it. - not the rest of the world. And chaos that surrounded and followed it is the Maccabean Kingdom. That Jesus is talking about his time is verse 16 about the false 'Messiah's' in the desert. This was happening in his time. Men were claiming to be the Messiah and drawing men to oppose the Romans. The Romans had to put down these 'false Messiahs' by force.

A lot of the other teaching is from the OT

The rest is Christian doctrine - from GotQuestions?

A generation in the OT is 40 years when talking about families.

Don't forget to thank me for my post.

 

Thank you for your post.

 

Of course, it's a religion will, it's just that you are behind the times. You haven't kept up with current views, you need to read more will to keep abreast. Your definition of religion is very narrow, it actually has a much broader definition.

So first let me put up some definitions here:

Definition 3 fits perfect for the religion of atheism, it states: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Now let me put-up the definition of faith.

The definition of 2 b (1) fits perfect for faith in atheism.
It states: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Atheism believes God does not exist for which there is no proof that God does not exist.

Now let me put-up the definition for atheism.

Definition 1b states: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

Now after showing you these definitions, it's rather obvious that atheism is indeed a religion. But if you're still not convinced then let me present the following below:

After what I've already presented the nonsense is actually coming from you if you still insist that it is nonsense to regard atheism as a religion. It is the truth and nothing but the truth and for one to deny truth when it stares at them squarely in the face is to be dishonest. For it is really nonsense to deny truth.

Well will, the religion of atheism believes nothing created the heavens and the earth, everything just appeared one day, "poof!" and there came everything.

Since they don't believe in the Creator Almighty God, then to them nothing created everything. There is no 3rd option will, it's either the Creator Almighty God created everything or nothing.

And that's right will the universe did not come from nothing; it came from the Creator Almighty God.

We Read in Scripture:

The Account of Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.[a] 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Genesis 1:1-2 NLT

Footnotes
a. 1:1 Or In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, . . . Or When God began to create the heavens and the earth, . . .

Ok thanks will for your post, I hope you've learned something new.

 

You’ve done a great job of refuting your version of atheism. It’s too bad you aren’t interested in hearing what atheists have to say about it.

 

A real atheist would not care enough, one way or the other, to even post on a thread such as this.

 

Read your own post!

Atheists just don't happen to believe there is a god.

That is NOT a philosophy. You can't point to ONE THING that is shared between atheists other than that all the various things they believe do not include a god.

Atheism is an attribute, not a "system of belief".

And, that is shown CLEARLY in your post as well as in the wide variety of philosophies and religions that don't include a god.

Again, PLEASE stop propagating your NONSENSE about atheism being a religion.

It is simply SILLY as you yourself prove.

 

Bull Crap.

Mitt and many others use atheist as an epithet in attacks of various types based on no more than their religion.

And, that includes in attempts to create law based on no more than their religion.

 

You will note that I do not work to falsify your religion, Mitt's religion or any other religion.

I haven't done that in this or ANY other thread. You are free to have your personal religious beliefs here in America.


What I DO oppose is weaponization of those beliefs against others.

And, I've pointed out that the Pope agrees with that position.

 

=============

How many billions of years did it take for the computer you are using right now to come into existence?

 

I believe you, that you are ignorant of God. Yet you seem incapable of affording me the same respect when I say I have knowledge of God? This impasse then is your creation. By turning my words(in bold) backwards, you are making a liar out of yourself, rather than a fool of me. I have also offered some detail about the context and circumstance of my revelation, but you ignore that as well, because it lends itself to truth and credibility. And you don't want that. It is you who has dismissed all the relevant facts and reduced my words to, in your words, "a feeling." For someone who claims to want evidence, you sure are quick to dismiss it.

 

All I can say is what I know. It is to the recipient to measure. Those looking for the truth will see it. Those not looking will not see it.

 

I think THE important point is that those looking for truth will NOT necessarily see YOUR truth.

We need to be careful about thinking that our own truth is justification for laws against others.

 

Gee, you caught me. I’m actually the Archbishop of Canterbury. Foiled again!

 

Should I afford "the same respect" to people that claim to have seen unicorns? Bigfoot? Elvis? Extra Terrestrials?
If you have some measurable, concrete evidence of your experience then present it, otherwise "feelings" is all it is.
By the way, I am not "ignorant" of God...I was a true blue believer until I realized that the "facts" I was basing my belief on were false.

 

Who said anything about laws. I have no designs on taking over the world.

 

If you don’t believe in unicorns you have formed a religion.

 

The "feelings" you speak of are yours, not mine. I actually know what I'm talking about.

 

Almost NONE of our laws are related to taking over the world. Let's not dodge the issue, as it is a serious issue.

In my view, the issue is that religion is not sufficient grounds for affecting the lives of others through use of our law.

For example, we have same sex marriage. Denying others the opportunity to be married is not justified by saying it's against some religion.

The Pope pointed out that being a sin is not a justification for declaring an act a crime.

 

A real athiest is simply doing what Christians do. Christians want to tell their truth. Athiests simply want their truth to be known.

 

If the Israelites were ever in Egypt, their harsh treatment was strangely benign.

Exodus 5:7 says the Egyptians had been giving them straw with which to make the bricks, but surely the collection of straw was the job of slaves and surely the Israelite slaves would already be doing this: it seems the writer could think of no harsher treatment to mete out than to require the Israelites to begin collecting their own straw. Moses was so incensed to see an Egyptian striking an Israelite that he killed him, as if he had never seen any Egyptian strike a slave before. Then we find the Israelite houses so similar to those occupied by the Egyptians that the Israelites had to mark their doors with blood so that the angel of death would pass them by.

When Moses demanded to be allowed to take the Israelites out of Egypt, the pharaoh treated him with courtesy and as an equal, quite unlike what we know of the historical pharaohs. In the real world, when Moses began to inflict plagues on the Egyptians, he would have been executed on the spot. The Egyptian cattle were killed while the Israelite cattle were spared, but the Egyptian overlords kindly refrained from taking the Israelite cattle for their own needs.

The moderation with which the Israelites were treated and the forbearance that the pharaoh showed towards Moses, was in stark contrast to the harsh treatment that slaves would generally expect. This can only serve to confirm the scholarly consensus that the Israelite nation was never in Egypt.

There is no extra-biblical evidence for the ancient Israelites' slavery in Egypt, and no evidence for the biblical Exodus from Egypt. The Israel Museum’s recent New exhibition chronicles meeting of ancient Israel and Egypt makes this point very graphically:

The hall devoted to the best known part of the story — the Exodus from Egypt — is an empty room with exactly one exhibit on display: a movie featuring co-curator and Israel Museum Egyptologist Dr. Daphna Ben-Tor, who explains that the hall is empty because there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever to support the biblical tale.

Thanks to Dick Harfield, Australia who has spent many years of study on the subject.