Seriously….. What would it take for a GOD to prove itself? (Part 2)

Have you allowed yourself to have an enough of an open mind to consider you have the above reversed? You see to think clearly emotion has to be stripped away. Most unbelievers have a deep emotional desire for science to be an accurate description of the way things are. So in your statement your emotional self wants science to be true to such a degree you don't even question it over religious belief, or lets say belief in the existence of a creator god, or an ID (I call God 'God the Intelligent Designer' or GID). So the truth is reversed. Its science that changes to explain emerging events or evidences.

God doesn't change. Its science that will change with the times. No one will deny sciences explanations such as darwins 'warm pond' stories have changed, some changed so much to be almost unrecognizable. A good fairly recent example? The universe and its origins. We (the scientific establishment) claimed the universe was unchanging (static as Einstein called it) and/or eternal. The SE held on to all or part of that theory up until the early 70's. (is the big bang theory was vindicated by a couple of Bell researchers playing with a radio telescope and exploring the cmb). I am sure one day science may find God if humankind does not kill itself off in a thermonuclear circle-jerk. Lets not forget we humans are past due for an extinction level event be it an earthly natural disaster like the eruption of a super volcano like Yellowstone, or a BFR from space. Personally I hope Jesus comes early and saves us from all of the above! My faith would not be shaken if he were an time traveling alien or a cloned replica or the real deal.

reva

 

I know its wrong (Its not PC) to judge an individual by his or her appearance. But that dude on the Ancient Aliens TV program that looks like he was riding a 1000 mph motorcycle without a helmet should do something about his silly hair doo. ~reva~

 

Do you believe in biblical inerrancy and in biblical infallibility?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility

 

Nope, the Bible is merely a guideline for Christians to follow, the true faith is about your relationship with the God. Being a Christian has nothing to do with how many Bible versus you can quote and this is where non-believers get hung up. They think if they can prove something in the Bible to be in error that God doesn't exist but they are completely missing the point about what it is to be a Christian so good luck in disseminating that book.

 

I don't believe it is possible to be Christian and not believe in biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility. I am sure you didn't even bother reading the links. A lot of Christians shy away from education and knowledge - they figure the less they understand about their religion, the better off they are.

 

Now that is a statement of fact.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

You should clear that up with the creator of the bible. The RCC.
Although not all believe in 100% inerrant. Seems contradictory. But to the creator of the bible, RCC, they see it more than a 'guideline'. As all true christians would.

This quote done shortly after the RCC created it.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE): He supported absolute inerrancy in a letter to St. Jerome. He wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

 

Given the level of education at that time .. such folks will believe the most silly of things.

The idea of inerrancy is dead (IMO) in most theological circles. Even the Pope concedes that the science on evolution is real and that the creation stories in genesis are a bit far fetched.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/29/big-deal-pope-francis-evolution-big-bang-real.html

 

Constantine and the Nicea gathering to decide which apocrapha would be canonized may actually have been the repeat of an old idea. I suspect Hebrews also had meetings to decide what to canonize into the old testament. For a while scholars thought it occurred via the Counsel at Jamnia, though that is discredited except for Song of Songs and one other Chapter.

I don't blame the RCC for what got canonized. They needed to agree on doctrine and dogma anyway. But a few things about the bible bother me.
1) Paul of Tarsus rewrites Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. He justifies his actions in Acts, by saying Jesus appeared to him and told him to do that. Paul never met Jesus. In fact, three of the four authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John never met Jesus. I think that a true Christian should read the original documents before Paul perverted them and took away the messages of Jesus to actually make Jesus the message himself.
2) RCC ignores a lot of the apocrypha. Gnostics have the true apocrypha.
3) New Testament is word-of-mouth for 300 years; with Codex Sinaiticus being the oldest complete document done over 350 years after Jesus died. It is clearly the result of the counsel that Constantine assembled. It is nothing at all from the time of Jesus.
4) If Tanach was actually written by Moses and placed in the ark of the covenant, then why does the Copper Scroll from Cave 3 not mention it? That was from the time where the ark still would have existed and was right where the ark existed, and yet it lists every valuable drop of gold, silver, and gems on the planet at the time. Why would it fail to mention an ark the size of a giant coffin, made from gold and precious gems? I will tell you why! The ark is a myth. It never existed. Moses never got tablets on a mountaintop, Moses never wrote Tanach. These documents were built to control men and force dogma onto a specific group of people. Just like new testament.

 

Actually, it is FAR From dead and you are absolutely incorrect. And that IMHO should stop this invisibly skydaddy sh*t dead in it's tracks.

"The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." Second Vatican Counsel Pope John XXIII on 11 October 1962

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_verbum
Dei verbum (the incipit of the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,344 to 6. It is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council, indeed their very foundation in the view of one of the leading Council Fathers, Bishop Christopher Butler. The phrase "Dei verbum" is Latin for "Word of God" and is taken from the first line of the document,[1] as is customary for titles of major Catholic documents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in October 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), held in Chicago.

 

I get that "evangelicals"/fundamentalists hold steadfast to inerrancy but they are small percentage of Christianity as a whole - The embarrassing sibling of sorts.

I agree that up until fairly recently the Catholic Church also was fairly committed to the inerrancy stance but this is changing.

 

The Bible is exactly the way God wants it, that is all we need to know. If things seem to contradict then they do, it just means we either do not understand it or that God has not given all the information.

You do not need to know the Bible backwards and forwards to be a Christian and you really seem to be struggling with this concept.

 

I'm an agnostic person but grew up Jewish and my mom wanted me to be a Rabbi (all moms want Rabbis, doctors and lawyers for their kids. It's kinda neurotic). So growing up it was American school followed by Hebrew school; and summers wasted at Talmud camp. But for whatever reason, I just really love the history of religion and talking to folks about it. I kind of feel like I was born at the wrong time - I wish we could be born a thousand years from now when people decide to be spiritual and believe in a creator without attaching it to all this fedeistic hocus-pocus skydaddy bullcrap.

But even if you and I are right and this biblical inerrancy goes by the wayside; the biblical infallibility worries me even more. Perfect example I would give of that: homsexuality. So the god-squad loons say this stupid book written by sheep herders is the word of god and that god is against homosexuality. These morons really believe that crap. They clearly don't have the brain power to comprehend science, and therefore to understand that homosexual sex is exhibited in 98% of all mammals on this planet (and didn't their invisible skydaddy make the mammals too?). To their little pea brains, it's OK that the person who said "gay is bad, m'kay" also thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

 

Actually, your lack of knowledge and education surrounding Davidian religion is shocking. The things you say are so incorrect that you clearly don't have a clue about Christianity. Not one iota. I don't know if you even have the mental capacity to learn about your religion; but if you do have it then you should try picking up some books. A great deal of research and publication has been done on Christianity from both the Christian perspective and the historical/scientific perspective. "The Bible is exactly the way God wants it" may be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard a person say. It absolutely flies in the face of the human species' quest for knowledge.

I don't want to be mean, but I don't think I can talk to you like an adult because I don't think you cerebrally are. So I think what I should do is put you in my ignore file. Not for being a bad person or anything like that, but just so that I am not disrespectful to you. So take care, and I wish you all the best. Bye.

 

Your link pertains to a very recent announcement. Nothing has been changed in doctrine, AFAIK. I'm not RCC so I can't say with any certainty.

bullet The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Imprimi Potest) 1994, states in section 107:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

Many christian denominations believe most of it is inerrant. The church I attended for many years believes that.
At one time it was believe by most all, IMO, that all the bible was inerrant. But as studies tried to prove and/or disprove bible passages, dates, locations, etc, it became apparent that some things simply are not true.

But still many believe the bulk of the bible is 99+% inerrant. We witness it right here on this forum.

Then there are many here on this forum who just pick and choose only what they want to believe as inerrant as a personal opinion.

 

That has always "weirded" me out. That's like saying you can be "just a little bit pregnant". Either the book has errors, or it doesn't. Either you are pregnant or you aren't. If it has errors, it's a work of fiction. If it has zero errors, you can argue it's non-fiction. And folks say "oh this statement is in error, but that other statement is the word of god". WTF???? God either wrote it (albeit through taking possession of a human's body and mind) or he didn't. Sh*t ain't rocket science. Personally; I think the book is total fiction written by humans. That hocus pocus crap about "being filled with a holy spirit" while writing is so phony it's laughable in 2015. That moronic crap deserves to stay in 1,000 BC where it belongs. It has no place here in modern times.

 

Homosexual acts may be found in 98% of all animal species but you will never find one single case where two animals of the same sex mate for life.

It simply does not exist in nature.

Thanks for helping to support the Christianity view though.

 

You are too late not to be disrespectful.

You are simply like most non-believers who get proven wrong, you have to resort to petty name calling.

But we get used to it, it comes with the territory.

- - - Updated - - -

List for us some of these errors your side keeps telling us about then.

I still have yet to hear one.

 

I am well aware of the hypocritical nonsense that is spewed forth on an almost daily basis by the fundamentalists.

They run a pizza joint on Sunday that serves pork and then claim not to want to sell pizza to folks that are in violation of levitical law.

Can someone please introduce these people to a course in logic and rational thought or at least school them in the definition of hypocrisy.

Then , every time you turn around these fundamentalists are wanting to force their mangled religious beliefs on others ?

This is where I have a problem. Have your belief, be happy you live in a country that allows you to have such beliefs - don't we all love freedom, but do not force those religious beliefs on others.

These folks are all happy about freedom for themselves or for things they agree with, but when it comes to freedom for others it is a different story.

What is more bizarre is that they do these things in the name of Christianity when the most fundamental teaching of Jesus was "do unto others".

In other words ... if you do not want someone else forcing their beliefs on you, then do not do the same to others.

This was not just one of a number of Rules but the rule that Jesus stated "summed up the law and the prophets".

In other words .... this is a really important one.

Surprise surprise that fundamentalists do not even understand primary message professed by "their saviour" the one who they profess to believe in.

Dumb and Dumber.

 

Hey genius - you understand how an ignore feature works, don't you? Maybe you can ask Jesus to explain it to you on Sunday?

 

Then you should use it which you obviously are not.

If you post on this forum I may or may not respond to it.

Don't like it then there is the door.

 

OK so maybe it is not changing as fast as I would hope but here is the thing. What the average Priest believes ... and what "official church doctrine" states are often different things. It is going to take some time, and probably a long time, for official church doctrine to change.

Most priests and ministers are rather well educated, well read and rational people ... very interesting folks to talk to for the most part.

I will stick to what I know in this respect. I have close relatives who are Lutheran Ministers. The attended the Missouri Synod Seminary. They do 8 years of school and then spend 1 years as a vicar under another active minister. They learn to read Latin, Greek, Hebrew.

What is interesting is that these fellows know that the Bible has changed, been edited, subject to interpolation and so on over time. They actually teach this in legitimate seminaries because it is a fact.

I grew up in a very religious household and have had numerous conversations with these ministers over the course of my life which is how I know they know this stuff.

I am pretty sure it is the same, if not more rigorous training for a Catholic or Orthodox Priest.

Then you have the other side. The fundamentalists have schools but they are taught "fundamentalist dogma" and that is pretty much it. You can actually find websites advertising "online degrees" ... Be a minister in 2-4 years.

That these folks do not sound educated is .... because they aren't !!

 

Really. Not 1 case. How do you prove that?
Even if it were true, it is completely irrelevant.

 

As a life long member of the LCMS, I know many in my small family, friends, and social groups who are also LCMS, believe the bible in most if not all is inerrant.

 

big difference between "most" and all. I know that many of the adherents believe this. My mother is the same and I do not tell her otherwise.

The Pastors though