:::::::Jesus and 'The Holy Bible':::::::

[h.h.]

Don’t blame Christ for disinformation any more than I blame Paul Bunyan.
False prophets abound.

 

[beta]

 

[GMT]

It takes a certain lack of creativity, to believe in other people's imaginary friends.

Christianity, like most others is misinterpreted or embellished buddhism. Where instead of dieing 2000 times a second, you only die once. And rather than having to create our own heaven, it is done for us (but only after we can't complain). Christians are just lazy buddhists who added an architect and workers (angels) to the sales pitch.

 

[Hermanthegerman]

Hello Pipeline, I took a quick watch in your Albums and I think Jesus didn´t like what I saw, a gun, a pistol, a lot of american flags. Jesus is standing for a lot of things but not for weapons and and not for nationalism.

 

[Shmavis]

i'm sorry but some of these theories that yall are putting out there as what it says in the bible are laughable. instead of listening to what some man says the bible says, just read it for yourself. then you can make an educated decision of whether it says something or not. unfortunately, it will take you years just to figure out the chronological order.



the bible doesn't say you go to heaven when you die, the earth is 6,000 years old, jesus is god, christians are happy and go to church every sunday, or most of the other things they are teaching people is "truth from the book". anyone can take a book and use it out of context and deceive gullible people into believing something it obviously doesn't say. how many people who are claiming a christian title even know what the book says IN CONTEXT?



And finally, please stop saying "that's your interpretation!" The bible interprets itself, but the symbolism takes years to understand... for instance mountains refer to nations (damn, there i go giving away freebies). If the bible was up to every person's private interpretation then there would be no absolute truth and each person would be their own god - once again deciding for themselves good or evil (remember that old two tree story).



i know this is all going to fall on def ears, but maybe there will be one starfish on the beach and it will be thrown back in the water (it's a parable and i don't believe that there are actually going to be starfishes viewing this).

What’s laughable is statements such as this:

"And finally, please stop saying "that's your interpretation!" The bible interprets itself, but the symbolism takes years to understand... for instance mountains refer to nations (damn, there i go giving away freebies). If the bible was up to every person's private interpretation then there would be no absolute truth and each person would be their own god - once again deciding for themselves good or evil (remember that old two tree story)."

Do you understand how this is nonsense? An inanimate object that interprets itself? Words do not interpret themselves. Meaning is ascribed to them. You’re saying meaning is not open to interpretation - yet at the same time that words do not really mean what they mean, e.g., mountains are really nations? Words do not mean what they mean; but it’s not open to interpretation… Judas Priest that's some circular argumentation right there.

Are you familiar with the historical context of interpretations of the Bible? You do know, right, that it was used to deceive gullible people (still is) - since it was interpreted and disseminated to the people through the church and only the church? You’re aware of the Reformation I assume. In other words, a rise of a differing of opinion regarding interpretation that lead to implementation of certain practices. Why are there so many Christian denominations if there’s only one correct interpretation? Your claim of the Bible not being open to interpretation is entirely counter to the historical context of the Bible. To say a text/literature is not open to interpretation is baseless in a historical context.

Gypsy has, knowingly or unknowingly, repeatedly put his finger on the central problem with his probing posts. The problem of evil, that is. It’s a logical problem. And it exposes the logical fallacy of one of the Bible’s main claims. Unless believers want to say that the Bible’s claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is to be interpreted in some way other than what the words mean, then there’s a logical contradiction to a claim as such. It goes something like this:

"The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.[2][12][14][note 1] The problem may be described either experientially or theoretically.[2] The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim.[17][18][19] The problem of evil is also a theoretical one, usually described and studied by religion scholars in two varieties: the logical problem and the evidential problem.[2]

Logical problem of evil:

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[20] the logical argument from evil is as follows:

1.If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

2.There is evil in the world.

3.Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2]

1.God exists.

2.God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

3.An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

4.An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

5.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

6.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

7.If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

8.Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises 4 and 6), with defenders of theism (for example, Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good.

If God lacks any one of these qualities—omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit God's omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology). Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Further reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

 

[Shmavis]

Pretty sure he’s not interested in any of your heathen rubbish
(Or mine, for that matter...)

Pretty sure this is his ‘ministry’ - his reaching out to save the sinners, tell everyone how great it all is, and “bring souls to Christ”.

In his other thread he got his back up and asked that he be shown respect by posting here instead. So I did. But it's cool, I have since noticed that he's not really open to discussion. Just blind obedience.

 

[beta]

The Bible is a Rorschach Test for the morally challenged.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

Yes - good post - and its pretty simple really - if any of us were gods and had all the power to change whatever - for the good of all - then none of us would let the innocent suffer - none of us would want anyone on the earth to starve or die of thirst, disease or pestilence -.


That's what being a good god should be about - so if gods really exist - then why have they not stopped all the trouble and strife of humanity? - and I don't want that boring old excuse of 'oh - well god gave man free will' - WTF for? - so he could continue to murder and torture the rest of mankind in perpetuity?

What’s laughable is statements such as this:

"And finally, please stop saying "that's your interpretation!" The bible interprets itself, but the symbolism takes years to understand... for instance mountains refer to nations (damn, there i go giving away freebies). If the bible was up to every person's private interpretation then there would be no absolute truth and each person would be their own god - once again deciding for themselves good or evil (remember that old two tree story)."

Do you understand how this is nonsense? An inanimate object that interprets itself? Words do not interpret themselves. Meaning is ascribed to them. You’re saying meaning is not open to interpretation - yet at the same time that words do not really mean what they mean, e.g., mountains are really nations? Words do not mean what they mean; but it’s not open to interpretation… Judas Priest that's some circular argumentation right there.

Are you familiar with the historical context of interpretations of the Bible? You do know, right, that it was used to deceive gullible people (still is) - since it was interpreted and disseminated to the people through the church and only the church? You’re aware of the Reformation I assume. In other words, a rise of a differing of opinion regarding interpretation that lead to implementation of certain practices. Why are there so many Christian denominations if there’s only one correct interpretation? Your claim of the Bible not being open to interpretation is entirely counter to the historical context of the Bible. To say a text/literature is not open to interpretation is baseless in a historical context.

Gypsy has, knowingly or unknowingly, repeatedly put his finger on the central problem with his probing posts. The problem of evil, that is. It’s a logical problem. And it exposes the logical fallacy of one of the Bible’s main claims. Unless believers want to say that the Bible’s claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is to be interpreted in some way other than what the words mean, then there’s a logical contradiction to a claim as such. It goes something like this:

"The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.[2][12][14][note 1] The problem may be described either experientially or theoretically.[2] The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim.[17][18][19] The problem of evil is also a theoretical one, usually described and studied by religion scholars in two varieties: the logical problem and the evidential problem.[2]

Logical problem of evil:

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[20] the logical argument from evil is as follows:

1.If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

2.There is evil in the world.

3.Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2]

1.God exists.

2.God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

3.An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

4.An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

5.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

6.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

7.If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

8.Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises 4 and 6), with defenders of theism (for example, Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good.

If God lacks any one of these qualities—omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit God's omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology). Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Further reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

 

[beta]

its pretty simple really - if any of us were gods and had all the power to change whatever - for the good of all - then none of us would let the innocent suffer - none of us would want anyone on the earth to starve or die of thirst, disease or pestilence -.


That's what being a good god should be about - so if gods really exist - then why have they not stopped all the trouble and strife of humanity? - and I don't want that boring old excuse of 'oh - well god gave man free will' - WTF for? - so he could continue to murder and torture the rest of mankind in perpetuity?

 

[TychoMonolyth]

 

[DJXX]

i was raised in a Assembly Of God household...but now at 60 i see things way different...you say heaven is a place where you go if you have been a good follower and are saved.....sorry as kids we believe in Santa and Easter Bunny...both ficticious but we are then conditioned to believe in the unexplainable...now this heaven subject...sorry i think when you die you are dead and turn into worm food....though you are in fear of reality so this Heaven card is played...and its the leader pastor or whatever you call it, putting fear n your mind to get in your pockets....the PTL with Jim and Tammy, is a great example of a scam...now this idiot sells holy water on TV that will make your monetary debts go away...Franklin Graham and Swaggarts son still beating the drum too..its sickening sorry...and supporting this President,,,who has stolen money, womens dignity and enything else he can scam out of you...i know what the bible thumpers are taught cause i was in the church three times a week....My sister who is a devout christain, lost her only baby to miscarriage, has diabetes so bad her leg amputated and has had three heart attacks...and she still defends her beliefs in GOD..Come on what kind of God puts any dedicated follower through this...no offense if you believe this way , i just think god is no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter bunny...no one can prove there is a place called Heaven... its just a belief to keep the followers in line of the teachings of an industry called religion...just my 2 cents..DJXX

 

[NEW ENGLAND]

Good ole tammy fay... now I got that visual lol
Now I gotta Google Hope Hicks to quickly restore the dying to the yang hahaha

 

[White Beard]

Good ole tammy fay... now I got that visual lol
Now I gotta Google Hope Hicks to quickly restore the dying to the yang hahaha

I can think of more appealing statuary...

 

[NEW ENGLAND]

Please share,no time for shyness.

 

[White Beard]

What’s laughable is statements such as this:

"And finally, please stop saying "that's your interpretation!" The bible interprets itself, but the symbolism takes years to understand... for instance mountains refer to nations (damn, there i go giving away freebies). If the bible was up to every person's private interpretation then there would be no absolute truth and each person would be their own god - once again deciding for themselves good or evil (remember that old two tree story)."

Do you understand how this is nonsense? An inanimate object that interprets itself? Words do not interpret themselves. Meaning is ascribed to them. You’re saying meaning is not open to interpretation - yet at the same time that words do not really mean what they mean, e.g., mountains are really nations? Words do not mean what they mean; but it’s not open to interpretation… Judas Priest that's some circular argumentation right there.

Are you familiar with the historical context of interpretations of the Bible? You do know, right, that it was used to deceive gullible people (still is) - since it was interpreted and disseminated to the people through the church and only the church? You’re aware of the Reformation I assume. In other words, a rise of a differing of opinion regarding interpretation that lead to implementation of certain practices. Why are there so many Christian denominations if there’s only one correct interpretation? Your claim of the Bible not being open to interpretation is entirely counter to the historical context of the Bible. To say a text/literature is not open to interpretation is baseless in a historical context.

Gypsy has, knowingly or unknowingly, repeatedly put his finger on the central problem with his probing posts. The problem of evil, that is. It’s a logical problem. And it exposes the logical fallacy of one of the Bible’s main claims. Unless believers want to say that the Bible’s claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is to be interpreted in some way other than what the words mean, then there’s a logical contradiction to a claim as such. It goes something like this:

"The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.[2][12][14][note 1] The problem may be described either experientially or theoretically.[2] The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim.[17][18][19] The problem of evil is also a theoretical one, usually described and studied by religion scholars in two varieties: the logical problem and the evidential problem.[2]

Logical problem of evil:

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[20] the logical argument from evil is as follows:

1.If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

2.There is evil in the world.

3.Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2]

1.God exists.

2.God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

3.An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

4.An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

5.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

6.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

7.If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

8.Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises 4 and 6), with defenders of theism (for example, Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good.

If God lacks any one of these qualities—omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit God's omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology). Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Further reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Biblical interpretation is a slush-filled hole - every Christian ends up in this hole eventually, because of Christianity’s split personality: believe in God, love Jesus, throw away your free will, the Magic Book says so, and the Magic Book can never be wrong...the Magic Book is the central mystery of Christianity, because without it, Christianity has nowhere to stand. The Magic Book must be believed above all things.

The notion that the Book tells the most real, most true, most binding stories, cannot be doubted, and applies equally to everything, clashes with the violent about-face Christianity has performed since the Sixties in the US.

My disfavorite trait of theirs is their stripping of context from every word in the Book: it a denial of context that’s behind an imposed assertion that EVERY WORD is *GOD* talking to *YOU*. Disregard which biblical person is speaking to which biblical person about a biblical event, disregard the point of the lesson, eliminate everything but the command words.

It’s an ugly trick that allows “men of God” to swear to - well, God, that they do not interpret. Without context nothing can be clearly understood for itself, and these “men of God” never leave off telling you how to understand the part they’re bearing down on during ‘bible study’...which is less ‘interpretation’ than veiled command from God, tailored by the “pastor”.

 

[White Beard]

Yes - good post - and its pretty simple really - if any of us were gods and had all the power to change whatever....

That's what being a good god should be about - so if gods really exist - then why have they not stopped all the trouble and strife of humanity? - and I don't want that boring old excuse of 'oh - well god gave man free will' - WTF for? - so he could continue to murder and torture the rest of mankind in perpetuity?

The matter of free will is a perennial thorn, and is misunderstood differently by Christians than by everyone else. If you spend much time with the ‘great’ Christian theologians and apologists, you’ll soon learn that the matter of man’s free will is crucial: man was “given” free will so he could make “the right choice”: that free will is supposed to be SURRENDERED, SACRIFICED to God. To do otherwise is the sin of pride (among other things)...in short, we’re not supposed to *HAVE* free will, we’re supposed to give it up, not trouble our people-parts, but instead curl up in the back seat and let Jesus drive.

 

[White Beard]

Please share,no time for shyness.

Mannequins aren’t my type...

 

[Teddybrae]

There is this song. An appropriate song. It's by Dory Previn. It tackles all the issues here. It summarises them. I can't recall all of the verses because I 'm being here now as much as possible this morning. But ..


"lets stop talking talking talking

wasting precious time ...
justifying alibying that isn't worth a dime.


words of wonder, words of whether, should we shouldn't we be together?
yadiada yadi yadi ya ya ya"

 

[SamsonsRiddle]

Yes - good post - and its pretty simple really - if any of us were gods and had all the power to change whatever - for the good of all - then none of us would let the innocent suffer - none of us would want anyone on the earth to starve or die of thirst, disease or pestilence -.


That's what being a good god should be about - so if gods really exist - then why have they not stopped all the trouble and strife of humanity? - and I don't want that boring old excuse of 'oh - well god gave man free will' - WTF for? - so he could continue to murder and torture the rest of mankind in perpetuity?

actually only god has free will - it says no man comes unto the father unless the son calls him first. so no man can choose to know god if god doesn't want the man to know him. that would mean only god has free will and man only has the freedom to make choices.



man was given the choice to follow god's way or not, and all of us have chosen to go against. there are very few times when god really intervenes if you look at the small amount of instances in the bible - so we blame god for not intervening after we decided we knew better than his way.

 

[SamsonsRiddle]

What’s laughable is statements such as this:

"And finally, please stop saying "that's your interpretation!" The bible interprets itself, but the symbolism takes years to understand... for instance mountains refer to nations (damn, there i go giving away freebies). If the bible was up to every person's private interpretation then there would be no absolute truth and each person would be their own god - once again deciding for themselves good or evil (remember that old two tree story)."

Do you understand how this is nonsense? An inanimate object that interprets itself? Words do not interpret themselves. Meaning is ascribed to them. You’re saying meaning is not open to interpretation - yet at the same time that words do not really mean what they mean, e.g., mountains are really nations? Words do not mean what they mean; but it’s not open to interpretation… Judas Priest that's some circular argumentation right there.

Are you familiar with the historical context of interpretations of the Bible? You do know, right, that it was used to deceive gullible people (still is) - since it was interpreted and disseminated to the people through the church and only the church? You’re aware of the Reformation I assume. In other words, a rise of a differing of opinion regarding interpretation that lead to implementation of certain practices. Why are there so many Christian denominations if there’s only one correct interpretation? Your claim of the Bible not being open to interpretation is entirely counter to the historical context of the Bible. To say a text/literature is not open to interpretation is baseless in a historical context.

Gypsy has, knowingly or unknowingly, repeatedly put his finger on the central problem with his probing posts. The problem of evil, that is. It’s a logical problem. And it exposes the logical fallacy of one of the Bible’s main claims. Unless believers want to say that the Bible’s claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is to be interpreted in some way other than what the words mean, then there’s a logical contradiction to a claim as such. It goes something like this:

"The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.[2][12][14][note 1] The problem may be described either experientially or theoretically.[2] The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim.[17][18][19] The problem of evil is also a theoretical one, usually described and studied by religion scholars in two varieties: the logical problem and the evidential problem.[2]

Logical problem of evil:

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[20] the logical argument from evil is as follows:

1.If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

2.There is evil in the world.

3.Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2]

1.God exists.

2.God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

3.An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

4.An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

5.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

6.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

7.If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

8.Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises 4 and 6), with defenders of theism (for example, Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good.

If God lacks any one of these qualities—omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit God's omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology). Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Further reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

the point is that there is only one interpretation that is right, and yes i was talking about the meaning and not the actual interpretation of words (which has been butchered in EVERY translation).



Just because one person believes that jesus is god, while the bible says that jesus is a part of god or the son of god doesn't mean the person believing a lie is right. just because you believe you're right, doesn't mean you're not actually wrong.



The meaning is (a)
I believe (b)
you believe (c)
the meaning is still (a)
this is called absolute truth