[mikeh]

32519, on 2013-January-06, 13:09, said:

To answer all your questions will need an extremely lengthy post. I can offer bite size chunks for you to consider. What you choose to do with them is up to you.

The incredible story of salvation for all begins in Genesis chapters 1 through 3. These 3 chapters are perhaps the most misunderstood and misquoted of everything else you read in the Bible. Yet they set the tone for everything else that follows.

Reading chapters 1 and 2 there are many significant differences. Some of these differences are so significant that many think that Moses erred when he wrote Genesis as it was given to him. Genesis chapter 1 is all about the “spirit man.” Genesis chapter 2 is all about the “natural man.” In chapter 1 the word “create” is used throughout. Create is the Hebrew word “bara” which means create out of nothing, to speak into existence. In chapter 2 when applied to the natural man, the word “made” is used. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines make or made as follows: construct, create or form from parts or other substances. The Hebrew Bible uses the word “asah” in Genesis 2 to refer to everything that God made or formed.
A table setting out these differences may help to recognise and understand them –

NATURAL MAN:
1. Made before or on the beginning of day 3 (Genesis 2 v 5 – 7)
2. Limitations were placed on the natural man
a) Limited to eat only from the trees from the garden in Eden (Genesis 2 v 16), excluding
b) The tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2 v 17)
3. God placed the natural man in the garden in Eden to tend and keep it (Genesis 2 v15)
4. The first Adam become a living soul (1 Corinthians 15 v 45)
5. The natural was first (1 Corinthians 15 v 46)
6. The first man was of the earth, made of dust (1 Corinthians 15 v 47)

SPIRITUAL MAN:
1. Created on day 6 (Genesis 1 v 27 – 31)
2. No limitations were placed on the spirit man
a) Was given all the seed and fruit of all the trees over the whole earth (Genesis 1 v 29)
b) No restrictions placed on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
3. Instructed to be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it, have dominion over every living thing (Genesis 1 v 28)
4. The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15 v 45)
5. Afterward the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15 v 46)
6. The second Man is the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15 v 47)

Adam was made before or on the beginning of the third day. The truly amazing thing about this is that Adam stood side by side next to God when He caused every plant of the earth and every herb of the field to grow (day 3). Adam stood next to God when He created the sun, the moon and the stars (day 4). Adam stood next to God when He created the animals, the birds and the fish (day 5).

If Adam and Eve never transgressed the Bible as we currently have it, it would only have 4 chapters; Genesis chapters 1 + 2 and Revelations chapters 21 + 22. Everything else recorded between these four chapters is God’s incredible plan of salvation for all.

But the question that needs to be asked is this: “Why on earth would God create a spirit man and a natural man?

No: the question that needs to be asked is this: why on earth would you believe any of that to be real? What evidence, what chain of logical analysis leads to accepting as true anything written in the OT? Or the NT? I appreciate that there are genuine reasons to evaluate the testaments as separate works, hence framing the question in that fashion.

Your posts seem to assume the truth of the passages you quote, and I have no idea how you justify that assumption based on anything external to the bible itself. Which renders everything you say devoid of meaning in terms of why any non-believer would see your belief system as at all plausible.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2013-January-06, 16:16, said:

No: the question that needs to be asked is this: why on earth would you believe any of that to be real? What evidence, what chain of logical analysis leads to accepting as true anything written in the OT? Or the NT? I appreciate that there are genuine reasons to evaluate the testaments as separate works, hence framing the question in that fashion.

Your posts seem to assume the truth of the passages you quote, and I have no idea how you justify that assumption based on anything external to the bible itself. Which renders everything you say devoid of meaning in terms of why any non-believer would see your belief system as at all plausible.

Exactly.

And how anybody could believe in the face of overwhelming evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old based on these writings is beyond me.

It also amuses me that some of the beliefs are probably based on mistranslations of the original writings. Example - apparently Adam's rib was taken to make Eve, is man missing a rib ? no, but he is missing one bone that most primates have, but saying his penis bone was taken would have been a bit fruity for later translations so it's speculated that this got changed quite early on.

[gwnn]

The really bad news is that eternal punishment, annihilationism and universal reconciliation all have good biblical basis (there is even some verses in the Old Testament that would seem to say that everyone just dies). Of course you can always pick one of the three and try to explain away the contradictions with other verses but usually it takes quite a bit of linguistic gymnastics.

[PassedOut]

One of the great benefits of living in these times in the West is that folks can speak the truth without fear of persecution by religious authorities. Susan Jacoby advocates speaking up in a non-abrasive way about these matters: The Blessings of Atheism

Quote

It is a positive blessing, not a negation of belief, to be free of what is known as the theodicy problem. Human “free will” is Western monotheism’s answer to the question of why God does not use his power to prevent the slaughter of innocents, and many people throughout history (some murdered as heretics) have not been able to let God off the hook in that fashion.

The atheist is free to concentrate on the fate of this world — whether that means visiting a friend in a hospital or advocating for tougher gun control laws — without trying to square things with an unseen overlord in the next. Atheists do not want to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith. We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.

Today’s atheists would do well to emulate some of the great 19th-century American freethinkers, who insisted that reason and emotion were not opposed but complementary.

I find the results of this poll heartening, a majority of the responders having shaken off the shackles of belief in god. Perhaps continuing to speak up in opposition to such beliefs (as mikeh does here) will get more folks thinking seriously about the whole subject.

[BunnyGo]

mikeh, on 2013-January-06, 16:16, said:

No: the question that needs to be asked is this: why on earth would you believe any of that to be real? What evidence, what chain of logical analysis leads to accepting as true anything written in the OT? Or the NT? I appreciate that there are genuine reasons to evaluate the testaments as separate works, hence framing the question in that fashion.

Your posts seem to assume the truth of the passages you quote, and I have no idea how you justify that assumption based on anything external to the bible itself. Which renders everything you say devoid of meaning in terms of why any non-believer would see your belief system as at all plausible.

There is a truth in stories. However, these same chapters of the bible warn against extending the stories to apply to things they shouldn't. That's not to mean they cannot answer questions or provide knowledge to the situations which they do apply to.

What is the story of the snake and Eve? The snake comes to Eve and asks about the tree. Eve says that God told them not to touch the fruit. This is in error, because God only told them not to eat the fruit. Eve made the mistake of expanding the truth of God from an area where it was true to an area where it was not true.

When the snake then demonstrates that there is no problem touching the fruit (since there wasn't), Eve decides that there's no problem eating the fruit either (another danger of forgetting the original purposes of these stories and only remembering their noncorrect expansions).

[Vampyr]

I was hoping the subject of the afterlife would come up, because I am interested in some opinions:

If a person who believes that goodness will earn him a spot in heaven, can he still be credited with personal moral virtue if he performs good acts? Does it "count" for you as a person if you are receiving an eternal reward in exchange?

[BunnyGo]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-06, 21:12, said:

I was hoping the subject of the afterlife would come up, because I am interested in some opinions:

If a person who believes that goodness will earn him an eternal reward, can he still be credited with personal moral virtue if he performs good acts? Does it "count" for you as a person if you are getting "paid" for it?

Can one sin through thought? I (and I'm not alone) think not.

I think that having evil intentions, but mistakingly doing good is one thing. On the other hand, if one consistently does good in word and deed (and not by accident), then I do not think their thoughts should be condemned.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-06, 17:05, said:

Exactly.

And how anybody could believe in the face of overwhelming evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old based on these writings is beyond me.

It also amuses me that some of the beliefs are probably based on mistranslations of the original writings. Example - apparently Adam's rib was taken to make Eve, is man missing a rib ? no, but he is missing one bone that most primates have, but saying his penis bone was taken would have been a bit fruity for later translations so it's speculated that this got changed quite early on.

Also, apparently the "many-couloured coat" was actually a "long" coat, and of course the "virgin" Mary was simply a "young girl/young woman".

[Vampyr]

BunnyGo, on 2013-January-06, 21:15, said:

Can one sin through thought? I (and I'm not alone) think not.

I think that having evil intentions, but mistakingly doing good is one thing. On the other hand, if one consistently does good in word and deed (and not by accident), then I do not think their thoughts should be condemned.

You seem to have read into my post something that wasn't there. I wasn't talking about evil or condemnation; just about whether a person can be considered virtuous (as opposed to neutral, not evil) if they believed that virtue would earn them eternal life.

[Vampyr]

Mods please delete duplicate.

[BunnyGo]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-06, 21:25, said:

You seem to have read into my post something that wasn't there. I wasn't talking about evil or condemnation; just about whether a person can be considered virtuous (as opposed to neutral, not evil) if they believed that virtue would earn them eternal life.

I'm simply discussing the inference that if the thought of reward can turn a person's good deeds and actions to no longer matter, then perhaps thought is sinful (or at least matters--if not as much as actions, then enough to affect things).

[32519]

OK, so you’re looking for a shortcut as why you should accept or reject the Bible and its contents. I don’t know if there are any shortcuts but I will give an opinion.

To prove that he exists and is real, at various intervals we have recorded unexplained phenomena and miracles in the Bible. These miracles escalated dramatically during the 3½ years of Jesus’ ministry, most notably in the form of people being cured from all sorts of diseases etc. These miracles continued in the period immediately after the resurrection and Paul’s ministry before tapering off altogether. Since Paul’s death until now at different times and different places there have been revivals followed by a gradual falling away of the people again.

Jesus promised those who believe would perform greater deeds than him (John 14:12). Apart from the years immediately after the resurrection this hasn’t continued for subsequent generations of believers. If it doesn’t happen before his return then he lied to us. If it starts happening while you are still alive, you will get another chance of salvation the easy way. If it starts happening after you have already died, you too will be saved, only the hard way.

[mgoetze]

32519, on 2013-January-07, 00:02, said:

To prove that he exists and is real, at various intervals we have recorded unexplained phenomena and miracles in the Bible. These miracles escalated dramatically during the 3½ years of Jesus’ ministry, most notably in the form of people being cured from all sorts of diseases etc.

In other words: the bible is true because the bible is true.

Seriously people, do you want to waste your time debating with 32519? Have you seen his threads on the bridge part of the forum? LOL

[nige1]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-07, 00:16, said:

In other words: the bible is true because the bible is true. Seriously people, do you want to waste your time debating with 32519? Have you seen his threads on the bridge part of the forum? LOL

We should be wary of ad hominem arguments. As a general rule, we learn less from debate with those who share our views than from those who challenge them.

[gwnn]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-06, 21:12, said:

I was hoping the subject of the afterlife would come up, because I am interested in some opinions:

If a person who believes that goodness will earn him a spot in heaven, can he still be credited with personal moral virtue if he performs good acts? Does it "count" for you as a person if you are receiving an eternal reward in exchange?

[Cthulhu D]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-06, 21:12, said:

I was hoping the subject of the afterlife would come up, because I am interested in some opinions:

If a person who believes that goodness will earn him a spot in heaven, can he still be credited with personal moral virtue if he performs good acts? Does it "count" for you as a person if you are receiving an eternal reward in exchange?

Why would this matter? The process of Judgement is explicitly described in Mathew, and doesn't mention good:

Quote

"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'

"The King will answer them, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' Then he will say also to those on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'

"Then they will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?'

"Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Assuming you were Christian (I am not) and believed that Matthew was a true Gospel, it is unquestionable what you have to do it. Judgement isn't passed on why you do anything, just that you did it.

[32519]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-07, 00:16, said:

In other words: the bible is true because the bible is true.

Seriously people, do you want to waste your time debating with 32519? Have you seen his threads on the bridge part of the forum? LOL

If you’re starting to feel uncomfortable about the things said in this thread, that is an EXCELLENT SIGN! It simply means that the Spirit of God is prompting you once again to respond to his calling. Jesus himself said that NO ONE can come to him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). If the Spirit of God has STOPPED from prompting you to respond to his calling, THEN you need to start worrying. It simply means that you have decided for yourself that God and the Bible are a fallacy. Paul repeatedly ran into the same situation; more so from his own countrymen from whom we have the Old Testament. He wrote about it in 2 Corinthians 13:8. Tragically nearly every translation of this verse is also inadequate. They have something similar to this: “For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth.” When I read that it simply made zero sense to me. A better translation would read something like this: “For the truth is we have no power over anyone against the truth.” The one area in which God has placed a limitation upon himself is to give man free will to make his own decisions.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2013-January-07, 01:07, said:

>> Seriously people, do you want to waste your time debating with 32519? Have you seen his threads on the bridge part of the forum?

We should be wary of ad hominem arguments. As a general rule, we learn less from debate with those who share our views than from those who challenge them.

Modern machine learning algorithms are based almost completely on ad hominem attacks.
You identify sources that provide unreliable information.
You adjust the model such that their contributions are downweighted (often times, ignored completely).

If you prefer a more old fashioned example, schools given grades to help distinguish individuals who have mastered various topics from those who don't. Moreover, we deliberately craft our society such that the individuals who perform well are the ones who make important decisions.

In my experience, the individual who complain most about ad hominem attacks are cranks, yahoos, and idiots who resent their status and think that throwing around some Latin will somehow make others forget the reams of drivel that they have been subjected to.

[Codo]

PassedOut, on 2013-January-06, 18:04, said:

One of the great benefits of living in these times in the West is that folks can speak the truth without fear of persecution by religious authorities. Susan Jacoby advocates speaking up in a non-abrasive way about these matters: The Blessings of Atheism

I find the results of this poll heartening, a majority of the responders having shaken off the shackles of belief in god. Perhaps continuing to speak up in opposition to such beliefs (as mikeh does here) will get more folks thinking seriously about the whole subject.

"Atheists do not want to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith."

You quoted this sentence and write the complete opposite yourself. Isnt't there a little gem in the bible (and elsewhere...) about the beam in the own eye?

I really do not understand why it is so difficult to respect different beliefs (or the lack of). I can respect your atheism, so please do not tell me that I belive because I did not "seriously thought about this subject." And do not tell me that I am in the "shackles of believes" while you are -well what? Maybe free or superior?
If someone claims that his nonbelive is superior, like MikeH does- it is not. It is as misguieded as the credo of fundemental belivers who think that their way to understand things are superior for reasons just they know.
Noone can seriously claim to KNOW the truth, this is why we call it belief. Some people have very strong believes (or disbelieves). Fine to me, as long as they do not rate my believes as inferior.

Sorry, but it really is should be that simple.

[Codo]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-06, 21:12, said:

I was hoping the subject of the afterlife would come up, because I am interested in some opinions:

If a person who believes that goodness will earn him a spot in heaven, can he still be credited with personal moral virtue if he performs good acts? Does it "count" for you as a person if you are receiving an eternal reward in exchange?

Why not?

If this does not count, what does count?

If you do good just because it makes you feal good or because your pals praise you for your generosity?