Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Rhyssua]

The universe is so big that a god may well exist... then again, it probably wouldn't be like anything we've come up with, and wouldn't care about us. For me, the most realistic depiction of a god was Q from star trek TNG.
So I guess I believe that a god might exist... but until we find one I can't say that I believe in a higher power.

[Korhal IVV]

Wot

Take a Bible handbook and look into the definition of "spiritually dead" or "total depravity".

Your book of myths is not the end-all or be-all of the universe. Not even of the spiritual universe.

Your own warped perception is not the end-all or be-all of the universe. Not even of the spiritual universe.

[Korhal IVV]

Women are highly denigrated in the bible. As are homosexuals.
And which rules are humans supposed to follow? Does the New Testament make the Old Testament null and void? What about the parts that contradict each other?

Whichever parts are most convenient for the individual Christian/group, obviously.

Leviticus is still their go to for 'homosexuality is a sin!', but all the other silly shit in Leviticus that would make modern life a massive pain in the ass? Doesn't apply anymore! Because...reasons!

Ow, your ignorance is burning through my retina like a solar beam made of madness.

Paul had words for homosexuality in the NT, and the moral law still applies to Christians, but not the ritual laws.

[Neanderthaland]

See what I did there? I quoted an article and included a citation to the original. You copied GotQuestions ad verbatim without acknowledgement at all. I'm not going to refute a post which is a blatant gish gallop and plagiarism of an entire web page when I actually spend time making my own posts.

Korhal IVV is constantly doing that. I have pointed it out to him, but he keeps insisting on copying and pasting the work of others without correctly referencing it. At this point it just looks like an intentional attempt to pass off the work of others as his own. And that is pretty fucking bad.

For the record, he responded to say that he just couldn't be bothered, and then immediately deleted the post.

[Korhal IVV]

Korhal IVV is constantly doing that. I have pointed it out to him, but he keeps insisting on copying and pasting the work of others without correctly referencing it. At this point it just looks like an intentional attempt to pass off the work of others as his own. And that is pretty fucking bad.

For the record, he responded to say that he just couldn't be bothered, and then immediately deleted the post.

Mmk

[The New California Republic]

Korhal IVV is constantly doing that. I have pointed it out to him, but he keeps insisting on copying and pasting the work of others without correctly referencing it. At this point it just looks like an intentional attempt to pass off the work of others as his own. And that is pretty fucking bad.

For the record, he responded to say that he just couldn't be bothered, and then immediately deleted the post.

But he is still doing it regardless, as that post just referred to is still there. Fucking shameless it is.

[Celritannia]

Do tell, which parts are you talking about?

1 Corinthians 14:34 -
women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:12 -
A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve

Ephesians 5:22-24 -
22 Wives, obey your husbands as you obey the Lord.

23 The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church people. The church is his body and he saved it.

24 Wives should obey their husbands in everything, just as the church people obey Christ.

Titus 2:4-5 -
Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, 2“Say to the Israelites, ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be unclean for seven days, as she is during the days of her menstruation. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of the boy’s foreskin is to be circumcised.

5 If, however, she gives birth to a daughter, the woman will be unclean for two weeks as she is during menstruation. Then she must continue in purification from her bleeding for sixty-six days.

Leviticus 18 and 20
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[1]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]

Secondly, are you aware the bible alone is just a book, written by humans? It's the interpretation of it which gives it value, not the book itself, and not all interpretations are equal, as the most suited person to tell you what was its message, is who wrote it.

So there is no one true interpretation, meaning everything in the bible can be ignored and forgotten.

And which rules are humans supposed to follow? Does the New Testament make the Old Testament null and void? What about the parts that contradict each other?

You're aware there is a whole catechism devised specifically to answer these basic questions? If you don't, you could try to look that up, as those are really basic questions which usually are taught to grade school kids. Those aren't really deep questions, nor new questions.

The super short answer is: Jesus didn't bring new laws, but the key to interpret the laws, and that key is "love yourself and others as you love god". All laws weren't given to be followed blindly, one example is the prohibition on sabbath, but laws exist to help people live together peacefully and with diligence.

No, there are for more inconsistencies than you are leading on.


No, the bible is not peaceful at all.

[Celritannia]

Whichever parts are most convenient for the individual Christian/group, obviously.

Leviticus is still their go to for 'homosexuality is a sin!', but all the other silly shit in Leviticus that would make modern life a massive pain in the ass? Doesn't apply anymore! Because...reasons!

Ow, your ignorance is burning through my retina like a solar beam made of madness.

Paul had words for homosexuality in the NT, and the moral law still applies to Christians, but not the ritual laws.

Your book of myths is not the end-all or be-all of the universe. Not even of the spiritual universe.

Your own warped perception is not the end-all or be-all of the universe. Not even of the spiritual universe.

Are you yet again, denying other interpretations against your own, despite you only copying and pasting stuff without citations?

[Hanafuridake]

Your book of myths is not the end-all or be-all of the universe. Not even of the spiritual universe.

Your own warped perception is not the end-all or be-all of the universe. Not even of the spiritual universe.

You're even copying and pasting other poster's words now.

Despite it not even making sense because Big Jim P isn't claiming exclusivity.

[The New California Republic]

Your own warped perception is not the end-all or be-all of the universe. Not even of the spiritual universe.

You're even copying and pasting other poster's words now.

Despite it not even making sense because Big Jim P isn't claiming exclusivity.

Desperation methinks.

[Tarsonis]

The Apostle Paul summarizes the total depravity of man in Romans 3:9-18. He begins this passage by saying that “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” Simply put, this means that man is under the control of sin or is controlled by his sin nature (his natural tendency to sin). The fact that unregenerate people are controlled by their selfish, sinful tendencies should not come as a surprise to any parent. What parent has to teach his or her child to be selfish, to covet what someone else has or to lie? Those actions come naturally from the child’s sin nature. Instead, the parent must devote much time to teaching the child the importance of telling the truth, of sharing instead of being selfish, of obeying instead of rebelling, etc.

Then in the rest of this passage Paul quotes extensively from the Old Testament in explaining how sinful man really is. For example, we see that 1—no one is without sin, 2—no one seeks after God, 3—there is no one who is good, 4—their speech is corrupted by sin, 5—their actions are corrupted by sin, and 6—above all, they have no fear of God. So, when one considers even these few verses, it becomes abundantly clear the Bible does indeed teach that fallen man is “totally depraved,” because sin affects all of him including his mind, will and emotions so that “there is none who does good, no not one” (Romans 3:12).

There is a common misconception regarding total depravity. Total depravity does not mean that man is as wicked or sinful as he could be, nor does it mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or wrong. Neither does it mean that man does not or cannot do things that seem to be good when viewed from a human perspective or measured against a human standard. It does not even mean that man cannot do things that seem to conform outwardly to the law of God. What the Bible does teach and what total depravity does recognize is that even the “good” things man does are tainted by sin because they are not done for the glory of God and out of faith in Him (Romans 14:23; Hebrews 11:6). While man looks upon the outward acts and judges them to be good, God looks upon not only the outward acts but also the inward motives that lie behind them, and because they proceed from a heart that is in rebellion against Him and they are not done for His glory, even these good deeds are like “filthy rags” in His sight. In other words, fallen man’s good deeds are motivated not by a desire to please God but by our own self-interest and are thus corrupted to the point where God declares that there is “no one who does good, no not one!”

So, no, it is not just “ not being close to God”. That is an understatement. It is the acknowledgement of humans tainted from birth.

The idea of total depravity is misanthropic, not to mention mean spirited.

It’s also heresy.

[Tarsonis]

For the Record, in my professional opinion as an actual Teacher and Scholar of Christian Theology, GotQuestions.org is not a credible resource on what is or isn't Christian theology. It's a blog run by Calvary University Grads, a school that isn't even ranked. Any citation from them should be viewed with extreme skepticism.


That is all.

[The New California Republic]

For the Record, in my professional opinion as an actual Teacher and Scholar of Christian Theology, GotQuestions.org is not a credible resource on what is or isn't Christian theology. It's a blog run by Calvary University Grads, a school that isn't even ranked. Any citation from them should be viewed with extreme skepticism.


That is all.

Adequate methods of citation were totally absent in this case though, as there were no quote tags used or any indication as to where the text came from. So it wasn't citation at all: it was plagiarism.

[Tarsonis]

For the Record, in my professional opinion as an actual Teacher and Scholar of Christian Theology, GotQuestions.org is not a credible resource on what is or isn't Christian theology. It's a blog run by Calvary University Grads, a school that isn't even ranked. Any citation from them should be viewed with extreme skepticism.


That is all.

Adequate methods of citation were totally absent in this case though, as there were no quote tags used or any indication as to where the text came from. So it wasn't citation at all: it was plagiarism.

This is all true, but the point I wanted to emphasize is, the source he's plagiarizing is dubious at best to begin with. Again it's a blog operated by a group of Calvary University grads. I shouldn't really crap on the school, I don't know much about it (though if GQ is the level of scholar they produce, I'm deeply skeptical.), but the site is essentially an anti-Catholic/Orthodox blog, rather than a legit theological site ran by vetted scholars of the theology. It's about as bad as Pen and Pulpit.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Adequate methods of citation were totally absent in this case though, as there were no quote tags used or any indication as to where the text came from. So it wasn't citation at all: it was plagiarism.

This is all true, but the point I wanted to emphasize is, the source he's plagiarizing is dubious at best to begin with. Again it's a blog operated by a group of Calvary University grads. I shouldn't really crap on the school, I don't know much about it (though if GQ is the level of scholar they produce, I'm deeply skeptical.), but the site is essentially an anti-Catholic/Orthodox blog, rather than a legit theological site ran by vetted scholars of the theology. It's about as bad as Pen and Pulpit.

I've been wondering for a while why Korhal seems to think he can decide which parts of the Bible he can ignore and which ones he can't, as well as why I keep seeing the exact same posts from him three or four times. I think I know the answer now.

[Tarsonis]

This is all true, but the point I wanted to emphasize is, the source he's plagiarizing is dubious at best to begin with. Again it's a blog operated by a group of Calvary University grads. I shouldn't really crap on the school, I don't know much about it (though if GQ is the level of scholar they produce, I'm deeply skeptical.), but the site is essentially an anti-Catholic/Orthodox blog, rather than a legit theological site ran by vetted scholars of the theology. It's about as bad as Pen and Pulpit.

I've been wondering for a while why Korhal seems to think he can decide which parts of the Bible he can ignore and which ones he can't, as well as why I keep seeing the exact same posts from him three or four times. I think I know the answer now.

What part is he ignoring?

[Korhal IVV]

This is all true, but the point I wanted to emphasize is, the source he's plagiarizing is dubious at best to begin with. Again it's a blog operated by a group of Calvary University grads. I shouldn't really crap on the school, I don't know much about it (though if GQ is the level of scholar they produce, I'm deeply skeptical.), but the site is essentially an anti-Catholic/Orthodox blog, rather than a legit theological site ran by vetted scholars of the theology. It's about as bad as Pen and Pulpit.

I've been wondering for a while why Korhal seems to think he can decide which parts of the Bible he can ignore and which ones he can't, as well as why I keep seeing the exact same posts from him three or four times. I think I know the answer now.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA I am not ignoring anything. That is just skewing the entire thing.

For one, ritual and ceremonial laws apply strictly only to Israel, and not to Christianity. And I am not the one doing the deciding

[Korhal IVV]

You're even copying and pasting other poster's words now.

Despite it not even making sense because Big Jim P isn't claiming exclusivity.

Desperation methinks.

I fail to comprehend your bothersome logic routine.

[Arctrucia]

Ow, your ignorance is burning through my retina like a solar beam made of madness.

Paul had words for homosexuality in the NT, and the moral law still applies to Christians, but not the ritual laws.

Your own warped perception is not the end-all or be-all of the universe. Not even of the spiritual universe.

Are you yet again, denying other interpretations against your own, despite you only copying and pasting stuff without citations?

It is more along the lines of shutting out wrong theology that ignores one or two things.

[Arctrucia]

Adequate methods of citation were totally absent in this case though, as there were no quote tags used or any indication as to where the text came from. So it wasn't citation at all: it was plagiarism.

This is all true, but the point I wanted to emphasize is, the source he's plagiarizing is dubious at best to begin with. Again it's a blog operated by a group of Calvary University grads. I shouldn't really crap on the school, I don't know much about it (though if GQ is the level of scholar they produce, I'm deeply skeptical.), but the site is essentially an anti-Catholic/Orthodox blog, rather than a legit theological site ran by vetted scholars of the theology. It's about as bad as Pen and Pulpit.

I did see him cite Stand to Reason and a few other very good sites back here.

[The New California Republic]

Desperation methinks.

I fail to comprehend your bothersome logic routine.

It's quite clear, but if you don't want to comprehend it then that is your prerogative.

[Arctrucia]

Do tell, which parts are you talking about?

1 Corinthians 14:34 -
women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:12 -
A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve

Ephesians 5:22-24 -
22 Wives, obey your husbands as you obey the Lord.

23 The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church people. The church is his body and he saved it.

24 Wives should obey their husbands in everything, just as the church people obey Christ.

Titus 2:4-5 -
Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, 2“Say to the Israelites, ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be unclean for seven days, as she is during the days of her menstruation. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of the boy’s foreskin is to be circumcised.

5 If, however, she gives birth to a daughter, the woman will be unclean for two weeks as she is during menstruation. Then she must continue in purification from her bleeding for sixty-six days.

Leviticus 18 and 20
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[1]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]

Secondly, are you aware the bible alone is just a book, written by humans? It's the interpretation of it which gives it value, not the book itself, and not all interpretations are equal, as the most suited person to tell you what was its message, is who wrote it.

So there is no one true interpretation, meaning everything in the bible can be ignored and forgotten.

You're aware there is a whole catechism devised specifically to answer these basic questions? If you don't, you could try to look that up, as those are really basic questions which usually are taught to grade school kids. Those aren't really deep questions, nor new questions.

The super short answer is: Jesus didn't bring new laws, but the key to interpret the laws, and that key is "love yourself and others as you love god". All laws weren't given to be followed blindly, one example is the prohibition on sabbath, but laws exist to help people live together peacefully and with diligence.

No, there are for more inconsistencies than you are leading on.


No, the bible is not peaceful at all.

Hold on while I laugh.

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

The “contradictions” you people invent are no more than things being taken out of context, things being forcefully aligned with the atheist worldview, wrong interpretation that violates one or two rules of Biblical intepretation, and assumes that every English word is to be taken at face value when they are, in fact, translated from ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek.

Plus, the “contradictions” are easily explained.

I fail to comprehend your bothersome logic routine.

It's quite clear, but if you don't want to comprehend it then that is your prerogative.

This is dangerously close to “you are dumb”.

[The New California Republic]

It's quite clear, but if you don't want to comprehend it then that is your prerogative.

This is dangerously close to “you are dumb”.

Not at all actually. Not wanting to =/= not being able to.

[Celritannia]

Hold on while I laugh.

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

The “contradictions” you people invent are no more than things being taken out of context, things being forcefully aligned with the atheist worldview, wrong interpretation that violates one or two rules of Biblical intepretation, and assumes that every English word is to be taken at face value when they are, in fact, translated from ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek.

Plus, the “contradictions” are easily explained.

How are they being taken out of context?
You do realise as human society has adapted, so too has religion, and therefore the interpretations?
That's what religion has to survive in the modern day.

So no, we have already had this discussion. You are using your interpretation amongst others. There are still Christians who believe women should be silent, homosexuals should be stoned to death, people should be allowed to keep slaves, etc. Every Christian interprets it differently.

Athiest did not invent these contradictions, they are there, in the text, both new and old, plainly to see.

I also recommend this highly in depth and researched 22 part video series of one person leaving the Christian faith and cites so many problems with it.

Athiests simply see it for what it is, an old book of ancient laws mixed with stolen myths that are no longer needed in the modern day. In fact I would go as far as to say they were not even needed then.

But please, enlighten me how I am wrong.

[Widdle Fae]

I find it weird that on threads like this, a small group of Atheists like to play thought police and try to deconvert people.