Mestemia said:
Yes, but there is all manner of evidence for evolution.
Religion on the other hand is all about faith.
They are not even close to being in the same league.
I will concede that the comparison was weak. However, my point still is that the evidence points to a nonliteral look at the Bible.
this sounds like double talk.
Though I admit that I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
It could be termed double talk. I have had the chance to discuss this idea with many ministers of different faith. The general answer is that God is never changing; however, the change that we see really is not a change but something that God already was, but simply did not show. In a way, most Christians would admit that there God is no longer like the God of the Old Testament, but at the same time, they claim that God never changes. Simply, it is a flaw in their belief system.
Historical research of God?
No such thing.
Historical research of the beliefs of god, perhaps.
I will concede to that. A historical research of the beliefs in God is a much better phrase. Or, the historical research of how people saw God.
It is not misleading.
It points to the fact the ten commandments are not nearly as important as they claim.
I mean, really, if the ten commandments were actually as important as Christians claim, they would be able to list them.
Again, I will concede to this. Personally, I find the belief in the Ten Commandments useless for the Christian religion as it was created for a very different God, one who was intensely jealous.
I am not misrepresenting the ten commandments.
My representation my differ from yours, but I am merely relaying the beliefs that the majority of people I have been around represent them and that is if you break them you go to hell. so it seems your argument is with them, not me.
Good luck with that.
It may be true that your representation is different from mine. And I can see how you would come to the representation from poorly guided Christians. But from a purely Biblical perspective, there perspective is incorrect. I am not saying mine is the only correct perspective, or that I am right, but that there perspective is heavily misguided, and does not actually represent what the Christian religion should teach (as in what the Bible actually teaches, and not what others have included as tradition, or additions). As you implied though, there really is no sense in arguing with them personally.
Most logical argument?
Based on what?
Oh yeah, YOUR INTERPRETATION.
So now all you needs do is show how and why your opinions are more accurate than all the opinions that differ from yours.
I claim it is the most logical argument on both Biblical teachings, as well as a historical understanding. If one were to look at the history of the belief of Satan, one would see that it wasn't until about the first century that he started changing from an Angel to the evil being that we now commonly think of him as. There is a logical reason for that, sects of Judaism were being exposed to the beliefs of Zoroastrianism. The belief that influenced the change of Satan was that of duality. Being that there is a good (God) and evil (Satan) force.
The reason Satan was used is very simple. The previous belief was that Satan was an angel with a crappy job. Since God said that we had free will, there was a need to test that. That was Satan's job. He helped in giving people free will. The best example of this is in the story of Job. Because of this though, it was not a stretch to make Satan into an evil entity. However, it was not an instant thing. There was quite a bit of opposition as well.
Also, even ignoring the history aspect, one could make a fair argument on the nature of God. He is suppose to be all knowing, meaning he knows everything that will happen. If he created an angel that would rebel against him, and lead other angels to rebel, either God intended it (which then shows that he is very capable of creating evil, and not all good), or he is a bumbling fool who created a massive mistake. Neither are actually truly plausible.
Moving back to a historical perspective, we can look at the idea of Hell. Hell did not exist in the ancient Hebrew belief. Even today, the Jewish idea of Hell differs greatly than the Christian idea. Actually, it is not even fair to call the Jewish idea Hell, as it simply is not. Hell, as it is known today, is a purely Christian creation. The word that we translate to hell, sheol, or hades. Sheol is literally a pit, or shallow hole. It is the hell of the Jewish belief, but does not actually resemble the Christian hell. The most one could spend there, according to Jewish belief is 12 months.
So during Biblical times, the worst that could happen was a 12 month separation from God. Later, hell started evolving. In Revelations, we are introduced to the idea of a Lake of Fire; however, it was not until even much later that that became hell. The Lake of Fire was a physical place here on earth. The Dead Sea was termed the Lake of Fire in historical times, because at times, people claimed that it was on fire. The lake being on fire may be myth, but the idea stuck.
Now, according to the Bible, the punishment for sin is death. What has to be understood is that Bible describes death basically a dreamless sleep. There is no suggestion of an eternity in a place that was created after the books were written. It was later tradition that dictated that sinners went to hell. The reason for this tradition was in order to get people in the pews, and to make more money.
Ah, so because the ten commandments are OT and Jesus fulfilled the OT laws, the ten commandments are null and void.
If you disagree with this statement, then you are picking and choosing what was and what was not fulfilled.
I will agree that the 10 Commandments are null and void. Especially since they were written for a God that was much different from what people currently see God as. Also, Jesus issued his own commandments, which pretty much cover what one really needs. So I will agree that the 10 Commandments are null and void.
ROTFLMAO
Nice try, but the fact is that you are merely presenting your own opinions of what the Bible says and then claiming some sort of better understanding of it.
Texxe Marres, Peter Ruckman, Kent Hovind, and Jack Chick all do the exact same thing.
There is a very large different between what I'm trying to do, and what those others are trying to do. I really don't care to promote the Christian religion. Personally, I find that it just as good as any other religion, and just as flawed. I am not trying to manipulate the Bible for my own good. If I'm wrong, it would not actually hurt my faith, or even effect my faith. I am not a Christian, but am one who is interested in the Christian religion from a scholarly perspective. I have no reason to manipulate verses to fit myself.
That is why I think the faith should be understood before insulting it. And I'm not talking about what certain groups declare is the true faith. I mean an actual understanding of Christianity in it's purest form (what the Bible actually says, and why it was said). By doing such, logical arguments can be made to discredit certain ideas of the faith, as well as support other aspects.
So, the Christians who believe it are what, not "really" Christians?
I wouldn't go as far as to say that. They are Christian, but they practice a different form of Christianity than what I term as the pure form. They are Christians, but their beliefs do not reflect what the Bible states. It reflects what that sect of Christians believe. In my opinion, it flies in the face of what actually should be taught, as it simply can not logically be argued, but much of what various Christians believe is illogical anyway.
I may claim that my understand is better than some (I would say it is more accurate than many evangelical or fundamental Christians) because I do not intend to credit or discredit the faith. I find to do either is a waste of time. But I also know that my understanding lacks quite a bit, as the Bible itself, and the history surrounding it is quite vast. Also, there are many obstacles in the actual research as there are many against it.
So you believe that God all of a sudden has no problems with homosexuals?
I mean Jesus fulfilled that law...
I have no problem with Homosexuality. I find the belief that homosexuality is a sin to be illogical, and something that was simply created because certain humans did not like the behavior.
I should mention this though, I do not pretend that God inspired the Bible. I know better than that. If he did, than all it shows is that he is a bumbling fool. At the same time though, I see no reason that Christians should have any problem with homosexuality.
