Christian Metal

[Crimson Velvet]

I was a lot less bored reading The DaVinci Code than I was reading the Bible... :\

 

[Thoth-Amon]

It's a good book. Not the best, but an interesting read. Definitely better than The Da Vinci Code at least.

Agreed. Da Vinci Code was utter shit. It was SO innacurate.

 

[skeptik]

I was a lot less bored reading The DaVinci Code than I was reading the Bible... :\

You're joking, right? The Da Vinci Code set the new benchmark for shitty, boring, retarded books.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

You're joking, right? The Da Vinci Code set the new benchmark for shitty, boring, retarded books.

 

[Under The Oak]

There is so much evidence that I'm not even sure where to begin. How about this CLASSIC passage: "Samuel also said unto Saul, the Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king oer his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Sam. 15:4). Well let's take a look at this passage shall we? God commands Saul to slay all of the Amalekites, man, woman and child. Hell, infants and animals even. Why? Because Amalek (i.e. the Amalekites) attacked the Israelites while they were leaving Egypt. Note that this event (i.e. Amalek's attack upon Israel) happened back in Exodus 17:8-14, HUNDREDS of years before Samuel and Saul were even alive. So basically God is commanding Saul to slaughter all of the Amalekites on the basis of something their ANCESTORS did hundreds of years before to the ANCESTORS of the Israelites. Is this even remotely just? Even if you say "well the Amalekites were still bad people and deserved to die anyway", fine, but what about the Amalekites infants? How can they POSSIBLY be bad and deserving of death? And the fact of the matter is that the passage says that they were to be put to death for something the Amalekites did hundreds of years ago, not because of how they were now. Furthermore, not only does this passage depict God as cruel and unjust but it also causes a theological contradiction with Ezekiel 18:19-20: "Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The sould that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall NOT bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him". In other words, only people who actually commit evil acts shall be punished for their evil acts, i.e. someone's sons or descendents shall not be punished for their fathers' or ancestors' crimes. Yet that is EXACTLY what God is doing in 1 Sam. 15:1-4. Why the discrepancy? It's easy. The author of 1 Samuel had a primitive tribal view of God that was not above having Him slaughter people for their ancestors' sins, while the author of Ezekiel had the opposite view.
This is a common strategy for people trying to defend the bible, they say, "oh you don't know Hebrew or Greek, when you read those original languages then there is no problem". This is a cop out because you know that most people can't read Hebrew or Greek and hence can't answer you on this. The fact is that the vast majority of these biblical problems or errors exist regardless of what translation you use, indicating of course that all of the translations cannot be wrong on that verse and hence the general idea of the verse is probably accurate regardless of the translation. My point is "how can you trust a book's central message when it is proven wrong in so many areas? How can you trust the bible in areas that cannot be tested (i.e. if heaven exists or not, or whether Jesus is god or not) when you cannot trust it in areas that can be tested (i.e. internal consistency, history, science, etc.).

Firstly, being a deist, I'd think that you might know that what may seem cruel or unjust to us humans may not be to God. The Bible never paints God as an "all-loving" deity, but rather as one who prefers to show mercy instead of judgement. In Exodus God declares war on the Amalekites "from generation to generation", so this is not something that suddenly started happening hundreds of years later. Also, in 1 Samuel it is noted that the king of Amalek was quite a vicious leader:

“As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women.”

Like truth, justice does not depend on your personal interpretation of it. Amalekites were far from being a minority group in their day, so it's not like God's vengeance for His people completed wiped them out or anything. In fact, the Amalekites were only attacked on the land that was promised to Israel. There was no holy crusade or genocide in God's name or anything like that. It was simply punishment due that the Amalekites had been warned about.

Well you may think that what names you give to God and the Messiah are irrelevant but that is NOT what the Bible teaches: "Neither is there salvation in ANY OTHER; for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

The messiah's name is not going to be Jesus in every language, and Christ and God have many names in the Bible. All that passage means is that there is one messiah who came from God. The "no other name under heaven" just implies that whoever identifies a crucified carpenter as the Son of God has the right idea. His specific English translated name is not the issue.

You are right I cannot prove deism. However I feel there are some compelling reasons to believe in the existence of a deity (as I'm sure you know) while at the same time there are compelling reasons to reject believing that the Bible is God's word. So while my opinions cannot be proven, there is some good reasons for believing in them and it cannot be proven wrong. The bible on the other hand can be proven false in numerous areas and hence untrustworthy.

I hate to break it to you, but your statement "the bible on the other hand can be proven false in numerous areas and hence untrustworthy" is an opinion, which you said you can't prove. Also, saying your opinions cannot be proven and yet they have good reasons that cannot be proven wrong... I'm finding more contradictions in your own posts than you've "proven" in the Bible.

 

[Ender Rises]

Shit... why only 3, ender!?

"I agree with most Orthodox ideas" I believe was the quote.

 

[cookiecutter]

The messiah's name is not going to be Jesus in every language, and Christ and God have many names in the Bible. All that passage means is that there is one messiah who came from God. The "no other name under heaven" just implies that whoever identifies a crucified carpenter as the Son of God has the right idea. His specific English translated name is not the issue.

But Islam has a competely different person as their prophet. Are they all going to hell?

Personally I choose not to believe in something that has no supporting evidence. I think TaylorC is right though. I will never understand, and he probably won't be able to explain it to me.

 

[Under The Oak]

But Islam has a competely different person as their prophet. Are they all going to hell?

That depends on what they think of Christ. If they just think of Him as a prophet and not the Son of God who died for their sins, then I don't think they will be going to Heaven.

 

[cookiecutter]

That depends on what they think of Christ. If they just think of Him as a prophet and not the Son of God who died for their sins, then I don't think they will be going to Heaven.

From what I know, yes that is how they think of him.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Firstly, being a deist, I'd think that you might know that what may seem cruel or unjust to us humans may not be to God. The Bible never paints God as an "all-loving" deity, but rather as one who prefers to show mercy instead of judgement. In Exodus God declares war on the Amalekites "from generation to generation", so this is not something that suddenly started happening hundreds of years later. Also, in 1 Samuel it is noted that the king of Amalek was quite a vicious leader:

“As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women.”

Like truth, justice does not depend on your personal interpretation of it. Amalekites were far from being a minority group in their day, so it's not like God's vengeance for His people completed wiped them out or anything. In fact, the Amalekites were only attacked on the land that was promised to Israel. There was no holy crusade or genocide in God's name or anything like that. It was simply punishment due that the Amalekites had been warned about.



The messiah's name is not going to be Jesus in every language, and Christ and God have many names in the Bible. All that passage means is that there is one messiah who came from God. The "no other name under heaven" just implies that whoever identifies a crucified carpenter as the Son of God has the right idea. His specific English translated name is not the issue.



I hate to break it to you, but your statement "the bible on the other hand can be proven false in numerous areas and hence untrustworthy" is an opinion, which you said you can't prove. Also, saying your opinions cannot be proven and yet they have good reasons that cannot be proven wrong... I'm finding more contradictions in your own posts than you've "proven" in the Bible.

1. Lame, lame, lame. I'm not saying that God didn't declare war on Amalek from generation to generation. But how can you HONESTLY feel it is at all just or moral to wipe out an entire people for the sins their ancestors did? It's exactly like saying "all white americans should be hanged because 150 years ago their ancestors kept slaves". Ridiculous. Secondly the entire idea of condemning people for the actions of their ancestors completely contradicts Ezk. 18. Next 1 Sam. 15:1-4 doesn't say that they were being wiped out because their king was evil but because their ancestors were. Lastly how on earth can the Amalekites children be even remotely accountable for either their ancestors sins or their parents? They are infants!
2. Yes I am aware of what Acts 4:12 means. It means that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, regardless of how his name is pronounced in your language. Clearly the meaning of it is you can only be saved by believing in Jesus or Yeshua, etc. i.e. by believing in this person as the messiah and son of God.
3. There are no contradictions in my statements. I cannot prove my opinions but there are good reasons for believing them. In any case they cannot be disproven. But much in the bible can be disproven. For example the idea that the world was created in 6 days, utterly disproven. "Oh, but you can't take that literally, day really means age" or "there are gaps between the days" or "it's really just a symbolic poem" or "[insert sophistry here]". Bollocks. Ex. 20:8-11 interprets Gen. 1 literally and bases the Sabbath Law on a literal interpretation of it. Or another great bible passage: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not tase of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:27-28). Notice that in verse 27 Jesus is clearly talking about the second coming "reward every man according to his works". Then in verse 28 he emphasizes what he had just said previously with "Verily I say unto you" telling them that the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (i.e. the second coming which he just mentioned and is now emphasizing) would happen before all of those present died, i.e. no later than the end of the 1st century.
In any case you have given me ZERO reasons for believing in Christianity. None. You have yet to show one proof that Christianity is true. I have given several numerous reasons why it is untenable.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

From what I know, yes that is how they think of him.

The Muslim conception of Jesus as portrayed in the Koran is completely at odds with the the picture the Bible portrays of him. Christians have historically considered Islam heretical and it's adherents damned. It is only in modern times when Christians have tried to become more politically correct that they have toned down their rhetoric and started saying that Muslims could be saved.

 

[Under The Oak]

1. Lame, lame, lame. I'm not saying that God didn't declare war on Amalek from generation to generation. But how can you HONESTLY feel it is at all just or moral to wipe out an entire people for the sins their ancestors did? It's exactly like saying "all white americans should be hanged because 150 years ago their ancestors kept slaves". Ridiculous. Secondly the entire idea of condemning people for the actions of their ancestors completely contradicts Ezk. 18. Next 1 Sam. 15:1-4 doesn't say that they were being wiped out because their king was evil but because their ancestors were. Lastly how on earth can the Amalekites children be even remotely accountable for either their ancestors sins or their parents? They are infants!

Again, you are arguing from your own personal, moral outrage. You seem to base a lot of what you believe on logic, and yet you get your panties in a bunch when the Bible says that God holds to His word and punishes people who attacked His nation? Did you not read a word I said either? The Amalekites were not "entirely wiped out". It was not even close to genocide. You can have brutal justice or you can have a God who doesn't hold true to His word and let's the enemies of His people walk off with no consequence. Sometimes there is no politically correct middle ground.

3. There are no contradictions in my statements. I cannot prove my opinions but there are good reasons for believing them. In any case they cannot be disproven. But much in the bible can be disproven. For example the idea that the world was created in 6 days, utterly disproven. "Oh, but you can't take that literally, day really means age" or "there are gaps between the days" or "it's really just a symbolic poem" or "[insert sophistry here]". Bollocks. Ex. 20:8-11 interprets Gen. 1 literally and bases the Sabbath Law on a literal interpretation of it. Or another great bible passage: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not tase of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:27-28). Notice that in verse 27 Jesus is clearly talking about the second coming "reward every man according to his works". Then in verse 28 he emphasizes what he had just said previously with "Verily I say unto you" telling them that the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (i.e. the second coming which he just mentioned and is now emphasizing) would happen before all of those present died, i.e. no later than the end of the 1st century.

If you can't prove or disprove what you believe, than why believe it at all? That's essentially the same question you're posing to me, only you believe that my faith is lesser than yours because it doesn't conform to your ideas of "logic" or "justice". And I find your argument against the 6 day creation absolutely laughable. What IS the earliest that we know about the formation of our existence? Does it mean that EVERYTHING as we know it today was created in 6 days? What if it means the basics were created in 6 days and have continued to "evolve" over time? I'd be very interested to see some of your theories on why 6 day creation is not possible, and no pseudo-intellectual scoffing, I want to see evidence.

And I've seen you use those other two verses before. Remember what I said about context. Verse 28 of Matthew 16 could be referring to the transfiguration or the establishment of Christ's church on Earth. I think the first view has more support, like in 2nd Peter 1:16. At the transfiguration, the disciples got a glimpse of the kingdom Christ is one day going to bring. Just because the verse before it mentions that one day He will "reward every man according to his works" does not mean the following verse is referring to exactly the same thing. It means that there will come a day when Christ returns and that the disciples and others who He appeared to after His resurrection saw a glimpse of what it will be like.

In any case you have given me ZERO reasons for believing in Christianity. None. You have yet to show one proof that Christianity is true. I have given several numerous reasons why it is untenable.

My purpose has never been to prove Christianity to you or give you reasons for why you should believe it. All I can tell you is why I believe in it, and if you can't bring yourself to understand, then that's fine. You seem to be very proud of your opinionated "knowledge" of "Biblical errors" and the likes. Naturally, like you probably enjoy doing, when I see a mistake, I feel the need to question if it's really a true mistake or simply an opinion with little support. You have given no proof of why Christianity is untenable. You have only ranted and raved over inconsequential details that can easily be explained. The only problem is that you're unwilling to accept the explanations that most Biblical scholars and Christians will agree with me on.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

You're joking, right? The Da Vinci Code set the new benchmark for shitty, boring, retarded books.

Oh, I agree completely! It was a dreadful book, but I was not bored reading it! I mean, there is a cliffhanger on every forth page, sometimes more often! But at the same time, I was chuckling over some of the crap he tried to pull, and the self-rightous attitude that just radiated throughout the whole thing. And not to mention, as a piece of literature, it is absolutely completely and utterly worthless. He's a horrible writer. It's the pop music of literature, really.

As for the bible... Too long, and too inconsistent! Some part were utter brilliance, while some parts were so tedious I read like two pages a day...

 

[cookiecutter]

If you can't prove or disprove what you believe, than why believe it at all? That's essentially the same question you're posing to me, only you believe that my faith is lesser than yours because it doesn't conform to your ideas of "logic" or "justice". And I find your argument against the 6 day creation absolutely laughable. What IS the earliest that we know about the formation of our existence? Does it mean that EVERYTHING as we know it today was created in 6 days? What if it means the basics were created in 6 days and have continued to "evolve" over time? I'd be very interested to see some of your theories on why 6 day creation is not possible, and no pseudo-intellectual scoffing, I want to see evidence.

From what I understand of the bible, it says God created the Earth 6,000 years ago as it is today in 6 days, including animals and plants, and such. The fossil record of the earth proves this wrong. It is indisputable. If you are saying God formed the Earth four billion years ago as a molten planet in 6 days, you are showing the bible is incorrect or at least speaking through metaphor in some places, and speaking literally in others, which is terribly inconsistent.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

BUT SCIENCE IS WRONG AND SCIENTISTS ARE JUST TRYING TO OBFUSCATE THE TRUTH OF GOD, DUDE.

 

[PanzerKunt]

Everyone stop writing long and boring posts.

 

[Killbot]

Everyone stop writing long and boring posts.

yeah, all this scrolling down is giving my finger cramp.

 

[Zephyrus]

This is not a good place for theological discussion. This thread ends here.

 

[Ender Rises]

Agreed. And if it does continue, make posts short and to the point. don't quote shit, present YOUR ideas, and don't fight for pages and pages.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Again, you are arguing from your own personal, moral outrage. You seem to base a lot of what you believe on logic, and yet you get your panties in a bunch when the Bible says that God holds to His word and punishes people who attacked His nation? Did you not read a word I said either? The Amalekites were not "entirely wiped out". It was not even close to genocide. You can have brutal justice or you can have a God who doesn't hold true to His word and let's the enemies of His people walk off with no consequence. Sometimes there is no politically correct middle ground.

Yes God apparently doesn't see the moral injustice of punishing people who didn't actually do the crime He is punishing them for. What a wonderfully merciful God! Yes the Amalekites were not entirely wiped out and guess what? God got angry with Saul for not doing so!! There is NO justice whatsoever in this passage as the Amalekites in this passage were being punished for something their ANCESTORS did hundreds of years ago. Utterly absurd.

If you can't prove or disprove what you believe, than why believe it at all? That's essentially the same question you're posing to me, only you believe that my faith is lesser than yours because it doesn't conform to your ideas of "logic" or "justice". And I find your argument against the 6 day creation absolutely laughable. What IS the earliest that we know about the formation of our existence? Does it mean that EVERYTHING as we know it today was created in 6 days? What if it means the basics were created in 6 days and have continued to "evolve" over time? I'd be very interested to see some of your theories on why 6 day creation is not possible, and no pseudo-intellectual scoffing, I want to see evidence..

Why believe it? Because there are good reasons to... you named some yourself, irreducible complexity, etc. These are NOT proofs of God's existence because we can't go back and time and see God actually doing these things but they are indicitive or an intelligent creator and hence it is reasonable to believe that one exists. How about the fact that the sun is said to be created on the 4th day! That's three days after the earth existed and yet we know that the sun is a hell of a lot older than the earth. Next we know that all of those life-forms listed in Genesis 1 were not created in six consecutive days. Dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago, that's over 63 million years before humans are around. We know that microbial lifeforms existed for billions of years before any other complex lifeforms like mammals, reptiles, etc. Do you possibly think that this fits Genesis 1 at all? Are you crazy?

And I've seen you use those other two verses before. Remember what I said about context. Verse 28 of Matthew 16 could be referring to the transfiguration or the establishment of Christ's church on Earth. I think the first view has more support, like in 2nd Peter 1:16. At the transfiguration, the disciples got a glimpse of the kingdom Christ is one day going to bring. Just because the verse before it mentions that one day He will "reward every man according to his works" does not mean the following verse is referring to exactly the same thing. It means that there will come a day when Christ returns and that the disciples and others who He appeared to after His resurrection saw a glimpse of what it will be like..

Wrong. Verse 28 is re-emphasizing what Jesus had just said in verse 27. He does so by saying "Verily I say unto you"... Find me one passage in the Gospels where he uses that phrase to completely change the subject.

My purpose has never been to prove Christianity to you or give you reasons for why you should believe it. All I can tell you is why I believe in it, and if you can't bring yourself to understand, then that's fine. You seem to be very proud of your opinionated "knowledge" of "Biblical errors" and the likes. Naturally, like you probably enjoy doing, when I see a mistake, I feel the need to question if it's really a true mistake or simply an opinion with little support. You have given no proof of why Christianity is untenable. You have only ranted and raved over inconsequential details that can easily be explained. The only problem is that you're unwilling to accept the explanations that most Biblical scholars and Christians will agree with me on.

Most "biblical scholars and Christians" agree on these lame attempts to dodge the obvious meaning of passages because their entire worldview would crumble if they didn't. I have given several excellent reasons for showing that the Bible is in error (attrocities, false prophecies, scientific errors) and yet I see you have given no reason for you beliefs. You continue to say you have but where are they? They don't exist.