Creation Museum

[BaseJester 1]

Wait, what? I just started a few posts ago, and you weren't here... so no, I don't remember.

Would it be too much trouble to read the thread? I'm responding to a point you made.

[vbnautilus 48]

The rules no longer apply and membership into heaven is now simple.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets

Exactly.

...

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I'm saying that Jesus changed a lot of that stuff.Question #2: Matthew 5

You are a terrible terrible reader.

i'm the terrible reader? a quick once over of matthew 5 offers nothing close to the meaning you seem to be taking from it.

[Dread Aidan 8]

I think brv's interpretation of Matthew 5 makes sense.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

how so?

[Dread Aidan 8]

how so?

Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Jesus didn't come to earth to say, "Yeah, those laws are hard, don't worry about them anymore."He came to earth to live and follow the law completely. He fulfilled the law, but then we killed him anyway and he died for our sins etc. etc., so now the way to heaven is through him and not by strictly following the rules.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

to fulfill the law he would need to follow it. so jesus followed the laws of the OT, but we dont need to, because jesus did and then died? that doesnt make sense to me and feels a stretch at best, and it seems to me you arrive at that meaning only if you're looking for it. anyone who didnt start with the idea that jesus means no more following the OT isnt getting that idea from matthew 5.

[Dread Aidan 8]

to fulfill the law he would need to follow it. so jesus followed the laws of the OT, but we dont need to, because jesus did and then died? that doesnt make sense to me and feels a stretch at best, and it seems to me you arrive at that meaning only if you're looking for it. anyone who didnt start with the idea that jesus means no more following the OT isnt getting that idea from matthew 5.

That's probably why you're not supposed to just read one chapter of one book to come to your conclusions. Plus, you can't just read it cold and apply your own meanings to it because it's thousands of years old and has gone through language translations and all that and I think I just put up the Bat signal for Randy to jump in now...My only point is that I don't think that verse is a "gotcha!" moment.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

My only point is that I don't think that verse is a "gotcha!" moment.

my only point would be that i asked where jesus countermanded the law of the OT, and brvheart immediately offered matthew 5. one would expect to go there and find something that says, look to me for salvation, follow me and not the ways of the past, i am your light, or whatever. but it in fact contains an explict sentence that says the opposite. i'm not here to change the law but fulfill it. fulfill the law to me means live that law, and since i am your savior you should do like me and fulfill that law.

[Dread Aidan 8]

my only point would be that i asked where jesus countermanded the law of the OT, and brvheart immediately offered matthew 5. one would expect to go there and find something that says, look to me for salvation, follow me and not the ways of the past, i am your light, or whatever. but it in fact contains an explict sentence that says the opposite. i'm not here to change the law but fulfill it. fulfill the law to me means live that law, and since i am your savior you should do like me and fulfill that law.

I don't know; that could be a possibility too.Translating "fulfill."

[brvheart 1,752]

[Tactical Bear 3]

pps. I love that Dread and Wang understand the truth. It will be the greatest day ever in my life if someday they actually believe it. I would sacrifice my life for that to happen.

I actually believe that, and it's one of the reasons that I've always been a very big fan of yours. You're sincere, and the rarity of sincerity never ceases to amaze me. More importantly, though: you have a rare heart. That being said, wishing will never make me a man of God. I have more respect for honest men of faith than comes across sometimes (do not conflate the fire I spit at the disingenuous and the charlatans as attacks on all men of religion), but I decided for myself long ago that God makes no sense to me. I honestly believe you feel God, Brv, that the truth of his existence is (sometimes frustratingly) self-evident; I don't. I decided long ago, on my own, that there was no God. I'll approach any attempt to persuade me otherwise with rigorous skepticism, but religion is predicated on faith. And that's the rub: faith cannot withstand skepticism. Wang

[Balloon guy 158]

Matthew 5:17 ( Jesus talking )Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.Good explanationTim:Ten Commandments were given to Moses written by the Hand of God. Exodus 31:18. They are part of over 600 'laws' of the OT. One of them is keeping the Sabbath. We no longer rest on Saturday, instead we worship on Sunday, because we have a New covenant...called the New Testament.But we still hold those commandments special because of the way they were given to us, and how most of our laws today are based on them.

[Balloon guy 158]

I actually believe that, and it's one of the reasons that I've always been a very big fan of yours. You're sincere, and the rarity of sincerity never ceases to amaze me. More importantly, though: you have a rare heart. That being said, wishing will never make me a man of God. I have more respect for honest men of faith than comes across sometimes (do not conflate the fire I spit at the disingenuous and the charlatans as attacks on all men of religion), but I decided for myself long ago that God makes no sense to me. I honestly believe you feel God, Brv, that the truth of his existence is (sometimes frustratingly) self-evident; I don't. I decided long ago, on my own, that there was no God. I'll approach any attempt to persuade me otherwise with rigorous skepticism, but religion is predicated on faith. And that's the rub: faith cannot withstand skepticism. Wang

I disagree, is your skepticism is honest.If God is God, then obviously He can answer your questions, and would never fail an honest seeker.My conversion began by me praying "If You are real, then show Yourself to me."

[Vinnie_Terranova 5]

My conversion began by me praying "If You are real, then show Yourself to me."

how did he do it?

[BaseJester 1]

How do you think we should apply this:

There are moral aspects of the law; however, which we continue to keep, not to be saved, but they are a way in which order is kept in society. They are a guide for believers in living out the Christian life. They are a means for revealing sin . . .

to this:

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

Is the rule from Leviticus "a guide for believers in living out the Christian life"? What's the basis for your answer?

[BaseJester 1]

What? When did we do that?

It's hypothetical.

I don't understand these questions.

Is the law an arbitrary set of rules whose purpose is only to demonstrate that rules are hard to follow or do they have enduring moral value?

[Tactical Bear 3]

I disagree, is your skepticism is honest.If God is God, then obviously He can answer your questions, and would never fail an honest seeker.My conversion began by me praying "If You are real, then show Yourself to me."

Two things:First: Faith, by definition, is incompatible with skepticism. Faith is belief in a thing that is unsupported by proof.Second: This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're begging the question. You assume God's existence while trying to show me that belief in him can stand up to a skeptic's analysis. Here's your argument:1) If there is a God, He would show himself to an honest seeker.2) God has not shown Himself to you.Therefore:3) You have not sought Him honestly.The conclusion is invalid. The correct conclusion is: "You have not sought him honestly OR he does not exist." But you've already denied the second half of that conclusion, so you ignore it. In your mind, God certainly exists, so it simply must be that I have not sought him honestly. You might even say, "But He has shown himself to me! That is proof enough!" Perhaps it is for you, but you can't present that proof to me, and I can't accept it without blindly trusting you.

[vbnautilus 48]

Two things:First: Faith, by definition, is incompatible with skepticism. Faith is belief in a thing that is unsupported by proof.Second: This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're begging the question. You assume God's existence while trying to show me that belief in him can stand up to a skeptic's analysis. Here's your argument:1) If there is a God, He would show himself to an honest seeker.2) God has not shown Himself to you.Therefore:3) You have not sought Him honestly.The conclusion is invalid. The correct conclusion is: "You have not sought him honestly OR he does not exist." But you've already denied the second half of that conclusion, so you ignore it. In your mind, God certainly exists, so it simply must be that I have not sought him honestly. You might even say, "But He has shown himself to me! That is proof enough!" Perhaps it is for you, but you can't present that proof to me, and I can't accept it without blindly trusting you.

Right. And furthermore he's asking the question in a biased way. If you want a truly unbiased answer to a question you cannot ask it in such a way that begs for it to be true. This makes you subject to confirmation bias.He did not ask the question from a position of true skepticism, he approached it from a position of wanting to believe.Wanting to believe something is the single largest impediment towards finding out whether or not it is true.

[speedz99 145]

Jesus came to say, "You are perfected in me." "I am the way, truth, and life". The rules no longer apply and membership into heaven is now simple. You can't possibly be perfect on your own, so just accept my grace.

And goddamn, would that be hard to resist.

I think some of the confusion stems from the fact that many Christians and Christian organizations push to get the Ten Commandments erected outside courthouses and such, but those Commandments are so...Jewish. As well as the fact that BG and many other Christians believe in the literal truth of Genesis and Adam & Eve and the Flood and all that, but then when it comes to something like how to beat your slaves or how and when to murder your brother for worshiping false gods, all of a sudden it's, to quote BG, "the Jewish religion."

It also stems from the fact that many christian leaders love quoting the old testament when it suits their positions.

pps. I love that Dread and Wang understand the truth. It will be the greatest day ever in my life if someday they actually believe it. I would sacrifice my life for that to happen.

"Well, you guys are so damn sure...what the hell, I'm in!"

[Balloon guy 158]

Two things:First: Faith, by definition, is incompatible with skepticism. Faith is belief in a thing that is unsupported by proof.Second: This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're begging the question. You assume God's existence while trying to show me that belief in him can stand up to a skeptic's analysis. Here's your argument:1) If there is a God, He would show himself to an honest seeker.2) God has not shown Himself to you.Therefore:3) You have not sought Him honestly.The conclusion is invalid. The correct conclusion is: "You have not sought him honestly OR he does not exist." But you've already denied the second half of that conclusion, so you ignore it. In your mind, God certainly exists, so it simply must be that I have not sought him honestly. You might even say, "But He has shown himself to me! That is proof enough!" Perhaps it is for you, but you can't present that proof to me, and I can't accept it without blindly trusting you.

I actually was thinking that your skepticism was probably different than mine, which is making it harder for you, but the greater the challenge, the greater the reward. So the notion that you weren't honest didn't enter my mind.But I see your point. I guess the value of what is being offered would make everyone want to believe...

Right. And furthermore he's asking the question in a biased way. If you want a truly unbiased answer to a question you cannot ask it in such a way that begs for it to be true. This makes you subject to confirmation bias.He did not ask the question from a position of true skepticism, he approached it from a position of wanting to believe.Wanting to believe something is the single largest impediment towards finding out whether or not it is true.

I want to believe this, but find that it reeks of personal opinion

[Roll the Bones 74]

Hold on, I think you're leaving some important stuff out.Your claim is:1. People who question the Bible will go to Hell.2. Going to Hell for questioning the Bible proves that the Bible is false.Do I have that right?I don't think #1 is right. I think there are a lot of examples in the Bible of people having doubts and questioning, but ultimately accepting because of things and stuff. I think we need to change the word "questioning" to something else. Not believing maybe? Would you still have an issue with #2 if we made that change?2. Going to Hell for not believing the Bible proves that the Bible is false.That's kind of like saying you shouldn't be marked down on a test just because you came to the wrong answer. Isn't it?I don't know; your reasoning just seems weird to me.

I've been thinking about this. I"m not sure how the question got framed this way in the first place. The fact that hell arose in the New Testament (wasn't in the OT-random fact) is usually discussed as one of the many reasons "why" Chrisitianity has lasted as long as it has. Fear is pretty powerful, especially when indoctrinated into children. So, I have never actually heard that simply because the concept of heaven or hell is in the bible, that it is proof the bible is false. With that said, I think I could make a case for it. Basically, that there is no evidence that they are possible. It would first entail us having "souls" which then "travel" to these "special places". There is no evidence of any of this and the entire concept would defy all known laws of physics. You could obviously say that it is too complicated or something we are unaware of, and though scholars (Hawking) would dissagree, if I even gave in that you may be right, we are simply left with- we don't know. We don't know that it isn't possible any more than there being pink unicorns there that want to lick your face-it's simply fantasy.But again, this all brings us back to faith in the bible.

[Roll the Bones 74]

So this brings up real questions.Heaven- How does this purportedly work? In heaven, you get to got there because everything is perfect. Perfect how? Can you think, feel, learn, grow or any of the things we associate with what it is to be a concious being? If you can, then it isn't perfect by it's nature. Are you like a rock, simply in a state of bliss? Why would you even want that? It's all just rather silly when you think about it, unless you propose that conciousness exteneds on past death. Again, there is simply no evidence for that and immense amounts against. The problem many have with the concept not being true is that it simply forces you to believe you are human. I suppose people love to believe we have a special invisible spirit that other animals don't, it separates us from the animal world. However beautiful you find the mystical soul, you have to come to the conclusion it is something our own bodies create. Conciousness begins and ends in the brain.

[Roll the Bones 74]

This brings me back to the bible and the discussion with BG earlier. Let's simply take the KJV as an example.Certainly there are many who would vow to the death that the KJV is the unerring word of God, but they likely know very little about it. It was translated into English from a version of the Greek New Testament that had been collected from twelfth-century copies by Erasmus. Erasmus put this all together by searching Greek manuscripts and when he couldn't find them, he translated from the Latin Vulgate, (which itself had been translated from Greek back in the fourth century). Here that splits into two problems. First, Jesus spoke Aramaic --- his actual words, never recorded, were only rendered in Greek in the original gospels. So first, the KJV is twice translated with all those complications. Second, Erasmus's Greek New Testament was based on handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies, etc., going back over a thousand years, and today is considered one of the poorer Greek New Testaments.People have a vague notion that all the original biblical texts are preserved in vaults somewhere, and translators work from those original texts. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. The earliest surviving versions of the gospels are handwritten copies dating from centuries after the original texts were written. Also, we don't just have a single version of each gospel, we have many versions, and even more fragments. The trouble is, none of the versions agree with each other.Now, the real problem lies in all those handwritten copies. Who wrote them and why? We know they hired scribes who were illiterate to copy bibles and we don't know if the old copies we've found are originals, copies, copies of copies, someone's version that they wrote or whatever. It is typical to assume the oldest copy is correct, but there is no logical reason for that to be honest. An 8th century copy might be truer to the original than a 2nd century copy, but like I said, we don't know and have no way of knowing. This is mainly because all of the copies of the bible DISSAGREE with each other and anyone who thinks they have the true bible is lying, they really don't know.Now think about that. If the all powerfull, omnipotent, all-knowing God can't even pass on his word to us in a clear fashion, how can he hold us accountable for missing the point?? And really, if you found the original (If it even existed since it's likely a collection of stories wrote down by many) I wonder how likely today's Christians would be to follow it?What if they found the oldest version today and it showed clearly that instead of Jesus saying, "He who is without sin cast the first stone", said, that her husband could stone her for adultery "unless her father paid him 10 goats". I would suspect that all the people that "get the feeling" of talking to God (like BG and Wang were discussing), would suddenly decide that perhaps they didn't actually "speak" to him and that perhaps the "feeling" was simply a little to much Rum or some gas pains.

[Balloon guy 158]

Randy, you have been lied to regarding the accuracy of the Bible.It is estimated we could rewrite 90% of the Bible just from letters written by church fathers writing to each other where they reference the letters.The KJV did use greek bibles, because there was a large influx of greek bibles showing up after the fall of Constantinople. This helped the KJV people, but not as much as it helped Tyndale, who was translating the Bible into English 70 years earlier. (I have a page from one of these Geneva Bibles.)The story you are telling is slanted, you keep implying that the Bible is full of mixed messages and changed stories.In fact there are very very few challengable verses, and almost every Bible with any notes points out the verses in question.But even if you strip the Bible of every shaky verse, there is not one thing changed in the message.I do love yous contention that those silly old Jew/Christians hired 'scribes who were illiterate' to copy the early manuscripts.See I heard they hired the 1st century version of Temp Help to outsource the work. And we all know how TH was pretty strict on hiring policies....I mean come on, that doesn't raise a bit of a red flag? The author of your 'proof' has no problem stating something as silly and damaging as to know details about the guy who copied the Bible? Unless he is talking about 12th century Latin Vulgate copies, (which no scholar in the world would use, except to help them understand the local beliefs since the middle age manuscripts were heavily influenced by Catholic expansion), then he is lying.Of course I guess I could be wrong and the illiterate copiers made major word changes to corrupt the documents even though they didn't know how to read or write. I guess they got lucky changing chapters..you know, and infinite bunch of monkeys type thing....The Dead Sea Scrolls were stored away before Christ. When discovered, your guys were so excited to have proof that the OT was in the same shape as you are now claiming the NT is in. There were books written about how the Dead Sea Scrolls were going to put a dagger in the heart of religion.They found a book of Isaiah, which was 800 years older than the oldest known translation. There was one word ( the name of a king ) spelled differently.According to your logic, the book of Isaiah was changed. But did it really change?The Jews were really good at making copies. They were the farm stock from where the Christians came. The ancient world didn't have a lax attitude towards written documents like we do. Saying they just made major changes then tossed the old ones out is so poisoned in bad logic it reeks.I am working today, but I will get back into the study of this for you to give you a better understanding.Until then, please show one change to any reasonably important doctrine that was changed by any of the so called 'faulty manuscripts written by illiterates'.For the last 2,000 years, Christianity has had no change to the message that Jesus died for your sins.