Godly Love

[Dan56]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

How sad and suspicious, that God needed Human scribes.  The mind that spoke all of existence into being -- needed help publishing The Books.

 

Content is why I believe, if scribes changed everything, it wouldn't make sense..The bible was written by over 40 different authors from 3 different continents over a 1,500 year period, with no contradictions and no messed-up prophesies. This in itself is a miracle and evidence God had a hand in it. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16).

 

God doesn't need human scribes or authors, but He chose them to spread His word.. We believe that Jesus is the living Word; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1&14).

God steps in to do the things we can't do, not the things we won't do. And your right, building the Temple required faith, Noah built the ark by faith, etc... If God did everything, we'd have no earthly purpose..And the only trickster is the adversary, who was a liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Perhaps trusting our own evidence or reason is what makes us gullible. Sticking with His Word is our most treasured feature."God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33) 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Content is why I believe, if scribes changed everything, it wouldn't make sense..The bible was written by over 40 different authors from 3 different continents over a 1,500 year period, with no contradictions and no messed-up prophesies. This in itself is a miracle and evidence God had a hand in it. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16).

 

God doesn't need human scribes or authors, but He chose them to spread His word.. We believe that Jesus is the living Word; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1&14).

God steps in to do the things we can't do, not the things we won't do. And your right, building the Temple required faith, Noah built the ark by faith, etc... If God did everything, we'd have no earthly purpose..And the only trickster is the adversary, who was a liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Perhaps trusting our own evidence or reason is what makes us gullible. Sticking with His Word is our most treasured feature."God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33) 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Aside from the question of originality, is the question of content.  Is the content true?

 

In the modern world, we don't accept everything as true, just because it is printed.  Likewise, the ancient world is full of manuscripts, that have no true content. [...]

 

Is that something like the alarming rate "we" share fake news... 🙄

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Is that something like the alarming rate "we" share fake news... 🙄

 

 

In every generation, there are skeptics who have standards for truth -- and the gullible hordes, who will believe anything.  Also sensation mongers, gossips, frauds and humbugs, who will spread anything as being true.  All the worse with religious movements and political parties.  There are gurus and holy men, in India today, who are alleged to do all the miracles found in the Gospels.

 

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was actually convicted, by the Courts of his day, of Criminal fraud.  Some things don't change.

 

It is not enough to have an ancient manuscript.  It should still be fact checked.  Unless of course, we are ready to accept any silly story, from any source, today.  It is good to be open minded.  Not so much that the brain falls out.  

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

On 1/14/2019 at 9:48 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Content is why I believe, if scribes changed everything, it wouldn't make sense..The bible was written by over 40 different authors from 3 different continents over a 1,500 year period, with no contradictions and no messed-up prophesies. This in itself is a miracle and evidence God had a hand in it. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16).

 

God doesn't need human scribes or authors, but He chose them to spread His word.. We believe that Jesus is the living Word; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1&14).

God steps in to do the things we can't do, not the things we won't do. And your right, building the Temple required faith, Noah built the ark by faith, etc... If God did everything, we'd have no earthly purpose..And the only trickster is the adversary, who was a liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Perhaps trusting our own evidence or reason is what makes us gullible. Sticking with His Word is our most treasured feature."God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33) 

Sorry, Dan, as much as I hate to admit it, this is very debatable, even to this day, which has also lead to divisions within the faith, as well.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

27 minutes ago, Key said:

Sorry, Dan, as much as I hate to admit it, this is very debatable, even to this day, which has also lead to divisions within the faith, as well.

 

 

By conservative estimate, there are over 40,000 flavors of Christianity.  If God did author the Scriptures, through "inspiration" -- then it follows that God is the "Author of Confusion".  If God had chosen to produce the Scriptures directly, and preserve them, there would be one Christianity.  A less confusing set of Books would also have helped.

 

Or, I can look at the world as it is -- and conclude that this is how things would be, if God had nothing to do with it.  If lots of people, over lots of time had written the Bible -- this is exactly the end result I would expect.  So, maybe Dan has a point.  God did not author Scripture.

 

Alright.  That was mean of me.  I'm not in a charitable mood.

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

The fact, FACT, of its debatability...is proof that it IS confusing.  Its confusing enough, that for centuries a special priest class was required for its interpretation...neverminding that they had as little insight as the next dan, er guy.  They used psychology.  They said it with conviction and 'authority' which people typically accept.  It spread because it gave answers(though unproven) and claimed authority which became real by dint of shear numbers and the ability to enforce their mythology.  When its a burning offense to believe otherwise, you should take stock on WHY the truth which is 'readily apparent' needs a death threat to be maintained.

[cuchulain]

On 1/11/2019 at 9:07 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Accuracy can be proven by volume, defects in any single copy would stand out by not complying with what's written in the majority of texts.

 

On 1/14/2019 at 8:44 PM, Dan56 said:

 

I never set-out to prove that, I've only submitted reasons why I think its very probable... Obviously, you can't prove a copy matches an original when no original exist.

The first quote is you claiming it can be proven, literally what you said.

The second, that you cant prove it.  

 

This is a simple demonsration of your deliberately deceptive tactics in debate.

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, Key said:

Sorry, Dan, as much as I hate to admit it, this is very debatable, even to this day, which has also lead to divisions within the faith, as well.

 

Show me a messed-up prophecy, or a contradiction? That was my only point... But of course there are divisions in the faith, the shear number of different denominations is evidence of that, but this is due to interpretation, and not the fault of a defective bible. Consider that even the Pharisees interpreted scripture differently than Christ. And remember the 7 churches of Revelation, Christ was only satisfied with 2 of them.

 

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 

The first quote is you claiming it can be proven, literally what you said.

The second, that you cant prove it.  

 

This is a simple demonsration of your deliberately deceptive tactics in debate.

 

These were 2 different subjects.. The first being the accuracy of copies, which I trust 100% because of comparative volume.. The second was in response to your demand for the original manuscripts for comparison, which is why I wrote; "You can't prove a copy matches an original when no original exist."  You just conflated the 2 in order to create a contradiction, but there was nothing deceptive about either post when taken in the context of what I was explaining.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The fact, FACT, of its debatability...is proof that it IS confusing.  Its confusing enough, that for centuries a special priest class was required for its interpretation...neverminding that they had as little insight as the next dan, er guy.  They used psychology.  They said it with conviction and 'authority' which people typically accept.  It spread because it gave answers(though unproven) and claimed authority which became real by dint of shear numbers and the ability to enforce their mythology.  When its a burning offense to believe otherwise, you should take stock on WHY the truth which is 'readily apparent' needs a death threat to be maintained.

 

Including Hell Fire.          

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Show me a messed-up prophecy, or a contradiction? That was my only point... But of course there are divisions in the faith, the shear number of different denominations is evidence of that, but this is due to interpretation, and not the fault of a defective bible. Consider that even the Pharisees interpreted scripture differently than Christ. And remember the 7 churches of Revelation, Christ was only satisfied with 2 of them.

 

 

These were 2 different subjects.. The first being the accuracy of copies, which I trust 100% because of comparative volume.. The second was in response to your demand for the original manuscripts for comparison, which is why I wrote; "You can't prove a copy matches an original when no original exist."  You just conflated the 2 in order to create a contradiction, but there was nothing deceptive about either post when taken in the context of what I was explaining.

 

The perfect Word of God is that difficult to understand?  If you say so.

 

          

 

     😄

 

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The perfect Word of God is that difficult to understand?  If you say so.

 

 

Absolutely, no one understands every verse, which is why we are encouraged to study and rightly divide the word of God. (2 Timothy 2:15). People develop different understandings and interpretations because they don't search the scriptures (John 5:39). Jesus said "Learn from me" (Matthew 11:39), "Learn a parable" (Matthew 24:32), and warned of the traditions of men creeping into religion (Mark 7:3-9). It also warns us not to change, add or subtract from the bible (Revelation 22:18-19), which is what many denominations do (LDS, SDA, RCC, JW, etc). 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Dan56

[Key]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Absolutely, no one understands every verse, which is why we are encouraged to study and rightly divide the word of God. (2 Timothy 2:15). People develop different understandings and interpretations because they don't search the scriptures (John 5:39). Jesus said "Learn from me" (Matthew 11:39), "Learn a parable" (Matthew 24:32), and warned of the traditions of men creeping into religion (Mark 7:3-9). It also warns us not to change, add or subtract from the bible (Revelation 22:18-19), which is what many denominations do (LDS, SDA, RCC, JW, etc). 

I think you mean discern, not divide. It was meant to unite the faithful, not divide them. One shift in a single word's interpretation makes a huge difference, as do entire passages.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Absolutely, no one understands every verse, which is why we are encouraged to study and rightly divide the word of God. (2 Timothy 2:15). People develop different understandings and interpretations because they don't search the scriptures (John 5:39). Jesus said "Learn from me" (Matthew 11:39), "Learn a parable" (Matthew 24:32), and warned of the traditions of men creeping into religion (Mark 7:3-9). It also warns us not to change, add or subtract from the bible (Revelation 22:18-19), which is what many denominations do (LDS, SDA, RCC, JW, etc). 

 

 

Yes.  It's almost as though God had nothing to do with it.

 

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Key said:

I think you mean discern, not divide. It was meant to unite the faithful, not divide them. One shift in a single word's interpretation makes a huge difference, as do entire passages.

 

I was paraphrasing the verse; "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). To me, "rightly dividing the word' just means to understand scripture in context and in association with other portions of scripture (Isaiah 28:10). For example, reading the OT prophets can be confusing unless its understood that they are prophecies relating to Christ in the NT.  Or even wrongly dividing a single verse can present a deceptive idea, for example; “There is no God". An atheist might quote a partial verse like this, but the whole verse says; "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1). "Rightly dividing" means to apply one portion of scripture as it properly relates to another. There's no contradictions when we properly divide each section of scripture as it relates to others. 

[cuchulain]

And dan calls us fools using scripture, again.  I guess hiding behind his mythology lets him get away with violating rules of conduct.

 

Gee, wonder why atheists dislike dans methods...and deceptions.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

And dan calls us fools using scripture, again.  I guess hiding behind his mythology lets him get away with violating rules of conduct.

 

Gee, wonder why atheists dislike dans methods...and deceptions.

 

I know.  Just Sweet Old Dan, quoting Psalms.  Nothing mean spirited or vicious in quoting Psalms.     

 

The words change, but it's always the same hateful music.   The intent was clear enough.      

 

Don't let him get to you.     

 

 

[cuchulain]

1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I know.  Just Sweet Old Dan, quoting Psalms.  Nothing mean spirited or vicious in quoting Psalms.     

 

The words change, but it's always the same hateful music.   The intent was clear enough.      

 

Don't let him get to you.     

 

 

Sometimes I do.  But this time, no.  

 

Some people wonder why I respond.  Some tell me repeatedly I am beating the dead horse...I don't reference you, Johnathan.  You have been supportive.  Some people, though, don't understand the impetus that drives me to respond in seemingly useless debate.  So I will take this opportunity to elucidate.

 

There are people in this world who's passion leads them to cook.  Leads them to become great chefs.  There are those who work with their hands and create art, who manufacture stories with ease that entertain and enlighten others.  There are those who teach and further knowledge to the new generations that come.  My oldest son is one who has passion for computers and their workings.

 

For me, I have a passion for philosophy.  The joke goes, "what do you do with a philosophy degree?  Think deep thoughts about being unemployed."  This is very apt for me.  I like to see the inner workings, understand the why's and how's.  But that's science.  I love to see how those why's and how's are translated and applied by others.  I love to see the depth of thought, or lack thereof, from others' arguments.  I like to examine the logic behind, to understand the deeper workings of the logic involved within the debates.  I like seeing sound arguments made, and it doesn't matter which side they are made for, whether I agree or disagree.  I like the sound argument. 

 

It's just that I so rarely encounter a sound argument coming from the faithful.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

41 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Sometimes I do.  But this time, no.  

 

Some people wonder why I respond.  Some tell me repeatedly I am beating the dead horse...I don't reference you, Johnathan.  You have been supportive.  Some people, though, don't understand the impetus that drives me to respond in seemingly useless debate.  So I will take this opportunity to elucidate.

 

There are people in this world who's passion leads them to cook.  Leads them to become great chefs.  There are those who work with their hands and create art, who manufacture stories with ease that entertain and enlighten others.  There are those who teach and further knowledge to the new generations that come.  My oldest son is one who has passion for computers and their workings.

 

For me, I have a passion for philosophy.  The joke goes, "what do you do with a philosophy degree?  Think deep thoughts about being unemployed."  This is very apt for me.  I like to see the inner workings, understand the why's and how's.  But that's science.  I love to see how those why's and how's are translated and applied by others.  I love to see the depth of thought, or lack thereof, from others' arguments.  I like to examine the logic behind, to understand the deeper workings of the logic involved within the debates.  I like seeing sound arguments made, and it doesn't matter which side they are made for, whether I agree or disagree.  I like the sound argument. 

 

It's just that I so rarely encounter a sound argument coming from the faithful.

 

 

Philosophy Humor:  What's the difference between a large pizza and a philosopher?  The pizza can feed a family of four.

 

Back to the issues.  At this point, I'm not really sure why I care.  I keep thinking that if the voices of reason go away, the only voices remaining will be madness.  Then again, so what?  Maybe I should wander off and let the crazies eat each other.

 

I have seen other Interfaith Church boards die.  It follows a pattern.  First the Fundamentalists drive everyone else away.  Then they aren't Fundamental enough for each other.  It ends with one loud bigot, who outlasts all the other bigots.  Then the board dies.

 

The Pagans on this board have already given up.  Most of the liberal Christian have also gone silent.  Remember Rev Rainbow?  The Pantheists have given up.   The pattern is holding.

 

Do I really care?  I suppose I do, or I wouldn't still be here.  But not as much as I used to.  The moderators have clearly given up.  My Apatheism is deepening.  

 

 

[cuchulain]

I understand the sentiment.  I have considered the departure myself.  Of course, the pagans are correct in their assertion that life begins, ages, then dies, and is reborn....at least so far as the life cycle of the average forum.  Life here, or conversation, begins with a few brave souls.  Then it ages...or gets old at least.  Then it dies off, just as you described.  Then it begins again later.