The bible

[PsychoSarah]

So go back to your point, which you have overlooked. Your concerned about "medical practices," apparently prescribed in the Bible, that will cause harm. Go ahead, air those out. I'm telling you openly I believe you will find it is nothing more than prejudice, if you have the courage to actually scrutinize your belief.

No, I just worded it poorly. When I said medical practices, I was thinking of stuff that could impact health, whether or not it was intended for actual illnesses. Lots of "spiritual health" stuff. Fasting, for instance.

It got stuck on only "medical" stuff thanks to Lollerskates asserting their apparent right to do whatever they want in the name of faith, regardless as to whether or not nonbelievers say it can have adverse medical consequences.

 

[Lollerskates]

Yes, at the end god rips out emotions like anger, fear, etc which are so important in being human that to do that would be to lose a great deal of what makes us who we are, rather than having us be born and develop without those feelings to begin with.

What love? Is millions of babies dying before they even speak their first word love? Countless rapes and murders all over the world love? War for the sake of religion and greed love? Us having the awareness that we inevitably die love? The fact that if we go by scripture the majority of people go to hell love?

Rather than state in spite of the suffering we all end happily ever after, I look to this life as the only one we have, and I wish people would treat it as more valuable than many do. Thus, the suffering and all other experiences in life are important, I value life, therefore I hate to see it wasted hoping some likely nonexistent deity will make it all better.

To be frankly honest the purpose of attempting to form a relationship with god has never been clearly addressed in a debate I have been in, nor do I think many people will find consistency in that matter. It actually isn't something I really think about as I don't think god exists to begin with, I would rather have that established before getting into such specifics.

Oh I see, you are mad. If not, you sound like a hurt child. And, I mean that seriously and not insultingly. Much if what you say is not biblical at all: it is subjective philosophy, or confused theology at best. And, I know you have experience and history in the church, but to argue with active believers about things that aren't even in or a part of the word of God - if only to vindicate your rants and raves - is quite disingenuous. Most of us have responded to you respectfully and patiently, but you keep accusing God of things He never said, did, or is obligated to do.

If you want to continue, pull bible versus that concern you, and perhaps one or some of us can fill you in on the historical and etymological context of the scriptures, as well as the spiritual context.

 

[Lollerskates]

It got stuck on only "medical" stuff thanks to Lollerskates asserting their apparent right to do whatever they want in the name of faith, regardless as to whether or not nonbelievers say it can have adverse medical consequences.

Sarah you overstepped your boundaries by telling me how I can raise kids I conceived.

I dont condone abortion, but I would never go on a self-righteous tirade lecturing another woman about what she can and cannot do with her body. I may state my beliefs, but it doesn't go further than that. You had the audacity to tell me what to do with my children. You crossed a line that most people would not be as ginger with you as I was, especially in real life. You dont tell other people how to spend their money, raise their kids, or practice their faith. These are certain things people are supposed to know (life etiquette) no matter how much you disagree or misunderstand practices.

We can argue about God all day because He can take care of Himself. Don't talk about my children - born or unborn.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh I see, you are mad. If not, you sound like a hurt child. And, I mean that seriously and not insultingly. Much if what you say is not biblical at all: it is subjective philosophy, or confused theology at best. And, I know you have experience and history in the church, but to argue with active believers about things that aren't even in or a part of the word of God - if only to vindicate your rants and raves - is quite disingenuous. Most of us have responded to you respectfully and patiently, but you keep accusing God of things He never said, did, or is obligated to do.

If you want to continue, pull bible versus that concern you, and perhaps one or some of us can fill you in on the historical and etymological context of the scriptures, as well as the spiritual context.

Look, I have no expectation of any deity, should they exist, even caring about humanity, much less hold any expectations to specific deities. However, if people are going to push a belief at me of a deity capable of preventing suffering which supposedly loves humanity, I am going to ask why that being doesn't prevent suffering when it has motivation and the ability to do so.

And well, this is the philosophy part of the forum, why would you expect any different? This is or was supposed to be a philosophical discussion, not a theological one necessarily. It certainly has deviated a lot from the initial questions of "why is the bible important".

I'm not going to pull biblical verses because in matters of suffering it is the ideals people have about god, not the bible itself, I have issues with. Well aware the bible claims important reasons for suffering and all, in fact I would say that in the Old Testament god was rather a bit of a tyrant, and seems to be trying to make up for it by the New Testament. But anyways I consider overall the god of the bible to be a sort of neutral entity rather than a purely good one, so my personal view of the Christian god doesn't really beg the question of why it wouldn't prevent suffering, more of it does whatever it feels like.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah you overstepped your boundaries by telling me how I can raise kids I conceived.

I dont condone abortion, but I would never go on a self-righteous tirade lecturing another woman about what she can and cannot do with her body. I may state my beliefs, but it doesn't go further than that. You had the audacity to tell me what to do with my children. You crossed a line that most people would not be as ginger with you as I was, especially in real life. You dont tell other people how to spend their money, raise their kids, or practice their faith. These are certain things people are supposed to know (life etiquette) no matter how much you disagree or misunderstand practices.

We can argue about God all day because He can take care of Himself. Don't talk about my children - born or unborn.

I have the caring nature to care what you do with your body as far as being concerned should I feel you might put yourself at risk, but it is another thing when lives other than your own are affected by your decisions. You have an obligation to do what is best for them, not necessarily what you want. Thus why parents can't use leeches on their kids for bloodletting like in the past, thus why law trumps tradition.

But in any case, it isn't like I can do anything to prevent you from doing whatever, but you cannot stop me from caring about the potential consequences of your actions. You mistook an unfortunately strong desire to protect and help people for one that wishes to control and limit them. I don't want to tell you how to raise your kids, but I will try to turn you away from things I feel would cause them harm, not to ridicule your beliefs or doubt your parenting, but as an obligation I feel that in potential danger I shouldn't remain silent because people won't want to hear it.

 

[Lollerskates]

Look, I have no expectation of any deity, should they exist, even caring about humanity, much less hold any expectations to specific deities. However, if people are going to push a belief at me of a deity capable of preventing suffering which supposedly loves humanity, I am going to ask why that being doesn't prevent suffering when it has motivation and the ability to do so.

And well, this is the philosophy part of the forum, why would you expect any different? This is or was supposed to be a philosophical discussion, not a theological one necessarily. It certainly has deviated a lot from the initial questions of "why is the bible important".

I'm not going to pull biblical verses because in matters of suffering it is the ideals people have about god, not the bible itself, I have issues with. Well aware the bible claims important reasons for suffering and all, in fact I would say that in the Old Testament god was rather a bit of a tyrant, and seems to be trying to make up for it by the New Testament. But anyways I consider overall the god of the bible to be a sort of neutral entity rather than a purely good one, so my personal view of the Christian god doesn't really beg the question of why it wouldn't prevent suffering, more of it does whatever it feels like.

We can discuss philosophy all day, but if you are going to rant about something you marginally understand to people who actively believe and oractice - as if you are right - then you need some evidence, humility or a combination. I dont make threads in the philosophy forums accusing Hindu gods, Buddha, Haile Selassi, or anyone/anything I am not knowledgable in, or invested in myself. It wiukd make me look arrogant and ignorant.

So, by all means lets talk philosophy. But, it should be open and unassuming, not dogged and myopic.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We can discuss philosophy all day, but if you are going to rant about something you marginally understand to people who actively believe and oractice - as if you are right - then you need some evidence, humility or a combination. I dont make threads in the philosophy forums accusing Hindu gods, Buddha, Haile Selassi, or anyone/anything I am not knowledgable in, or invested in myself. It wiukd make me look arrogant and ignorant.

So, by all means lets talk philosophy. But, it should be open and unassuming, not dogged and myopic.

By your own religion no one really understands god, but it makes interesting conversation to debate the ideals people have about it. Remember, since everyone's ideals are different, my arguments simply might not match up with your ideal of god to begin with, thus why they seem ignorant.

 

[Lollerskates]

I have the caring nature to care what you do with your body as far as being concerned should I feel you might put yourself at risk, but it is another thing when lives other than your own are affected by your decisions. You have an obligation to do what is best for them, not necessarily what you want. Thus why parents can't use leeches on their kids for bloodletting like in the past, thus why law trumps tradition.

But in any case, it isn't like I can do anything to prevent you from doing whatever, but you cannot stop me from caring about the potential consequences of your actions. You mistook an unfortunately strong desire to protect and help people for one that wishes to control and limit them. I don't want to tell you how to raise your kids, but I will try to turn you away from things I feel would cause them harm, not to ridicule your beliefs or doubt your parenting, but as an obligation I feel that in potential danger I shouldn't remain silent because people won't want to hear it.

No, you have an imposing and self-vindicated, self-righteous nature that you have convince yourself is nothing but benevolent care. Care about your own kids. You dont ever say anything about anyone else's kids: it is the quickest way to get mentally, physically, or spiritually disappointed and hurt. Keep your mouth closed. You talk about my kids, and what I am to do with then as if it is your child, and as I told you before I will rattle this entire planet defending them and shutting you down completely. As I said, it is called life etiquette and cuth. Not everyone wants to hear about your "caring nature" for our children. We care much more than you ever could for them because we love them. My advice, and please take it with me: stay out of my children's business, and how I raise them. I dont want your concern. Save it.

Now, anyone else want Sarah's Secrets on how to raise your children, you can pm or respond to her by all means. I dont play with my own.

 

[Lollerskates]

By your own religion no one really understands god, but it makes interesting conversation to debate the ideals people have about it. Remember, since everyone's ideals are different, my arguments simply might not match up with your ideal of god to begin with, thus why they seem ignorant.

But you claim a certain air of vindication when you discuss philosophy. And, plenty of people understand God on a basic level. Again, where is it that in my "religion" no one understands Him? Come with facts - at least from my "religion." Don't just state and run, then claim you are just discussing philosophy when you are called on your statements. And, as I said someone will provide you with vindication, or correct you with spiritual, etymological and historic context.

 

[ob77]

Why is it so important? I'm not going to make any claims or assumptions, I just want an honest answer as to why the bible is so important.

Because it is the history, a family history of the Adamic race, from beginning to end. How we got here , why we are here, and where we return.
The earth has been a battleground between Satan and God for sometime now, since Satan's rebellion. There are 163 books of the Bible, but we at present only have 66. The other books reveal much more than what we have as to details. Even so, Christ said the mysteries of the Kingdom are for us to understand, but not to the world or the forces of darkness. Since they do not understand it, they have not been able to opaque it entirely from scripture, though try as they might.
No other written recording of history can account for how the universe was created, or how man was broughtforth and in what succession, or how the earth has gone through periods or ages of time and the land masses have changed. Atlantis sunk, Lemuria went down, The Assyrians' history goes back 72,000 years, The asiatics go back farther than that, to the tungis man coming out the the high steppes. I have covered a lot of ground here in this short post. I hate writing an entire book in one post. 'Nuff said.

 

[theophilus777]

I look to this life as the only one we have, and I wish people would treat it as more valuable than many do.

Cue: lay down your life and you will find it, but "love" your own life and you will lose it. So it seems that the world view that goes along with atheism does actually make a difference?

Thus, the suffering and all other experiences in life are important, I value life, therefore I hate to see it wasted

This far, there is no distinction between atheist and theist.

To be frankly honest the purpose of attempting to form a relationship with god has never been clearly addressed in a debate I have been in, nor do I think many people will find consistency in that matter.

If you entertain the thought you will find HUGE consistency in the matter, but also plenty of room for individuality. Isn't life grand? And it reflects God's largeness.

 

[theophilus777]

if people are going to push a belief at me of a deity capable of preventing suffering which supposedly loves humanity, I am going to ask why that being doesn't prevent suffering when it has motivation and the ability to do so.

And that is exactly what the Bible is for. So, we're perfectly on topic.

 

[theophilus777]

I don't want to tell you how to raise your kids, but I will try to turn you away from things I feel would cause them harm, not to ridicule your beliefs or doubt your parenting, but as an obligation I feel that in potential danger I shouldn't remain silent because people won't want to hear it.

We see the same problem in 3 different iterations: the common thread is dwelling on the negative. We see you do that with the Bible, focusing only on the negative aspects and asking how can this be good? We see it in your usage of omnipotence, focusing on how that can be wrong w/o entertaining how people use it,and here we see it in you assuming Mr Loller somehow puts his family in potential danger.

Someone else recognized it would be better to simply state the concern, w/o attaching it to any individual. In that way, you can express your concern, w/o stirring up anyone's ire. Have some people neglected their kid's medical needs due to their faith, even when they could've done something about it? You betcha. But no one here is arguing for that. In fact, its one of the better simple arguments against JW. (Jehovah's Witnesses)

And this is still on topic, because if anyone wants to gain any insight into the intent of the Bible, always look for how it relates to Jesus. That's not dwelling on the negative, but always dwelling on the Light, Jesus being that light that brings light to every member of our species.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And that is exactly what the Bible is for. So, we're perfectly on topic.

And yet people often have vastly differing interpretations on the matter.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I focus in the suffering and negative because I feel it needs to be addressed. Why would I have issues with the positive things, why would I argue about them or feel conflicted? Although, I do prefer the Catholic ideal of both works and belief being needed to get into heaven rather than belief alone, I feel that allowing murderers and the like into heaven just because if belief unjust.

 

[Gottservant]

That's a funny one, isn't it?

Like why do news reporters try to sound objective?

Or why do (people's ideas of) aliens all look like us?

 

[St_Worm2]

I focus in the suffering and negative because I feel it needs to be addressed. Why would I have issues with the positive things, why would I argue about them or feel conflicted? Although, I do prefer the Catholic ideal of both works and belief being needed to get into heaven rather than belief alone, I feel that allowing murderers and the like into heaven just because if belief unjust.

Hi Sarah, I'll have to return to the first part of your post later (since I would definitely like to discuss "suffering" with you), but for now, I'm only interested in knowing why you believe the Roman Catholic Church does things differently (and how it operates differently) from a Protestant church with regard to someone like this murderer you just spoke of. What works, for instance, do you believe the RCC would demand of this murderer to be saved that a Protestant church would not ..

Thanks!!

Yours and His,
David

 

[theophilus777]

And yet people often have vastly differing interpretations on the matter.

As they should

I focus in the suffering and negative because I feel it needs to be addressed. Why would I have issues with the positive things, why would I argue about them or feel conflicted? Although, I do prefer the Catholic ideal of both works and belief being needed to get into heaven rather than belief alone, I feel that allowing murderers and the like into heaven just because if belief unjust.

But you have not discovered how to address the suffering and the negative. Why is that? Because it's not in the part you are looking at.