Every Generation Shall Have a Prophet.

Every Generation Shall Have a Prophet.

by A Person Published on August 21st, 2009, 9:53 pm Rift: Religion

Well, what an interesting converstaion. It's like watching a boxing match. Only one person actually seems to be a boxer ...

Precis: I'm a creationist too and if you're not you're just a bunch of meanies

Unbelievers are really not neutral to God at all are they?

Well duh. They don't believe in god. That's not a neutral position.

The fact is you are resisiting something that seems to assert alot of pressure upon you.

yes, it's called the religious. Not god, the people who claim to speak for him and impose their bronze age mythology and prohibitions on everyone else

Darwin is on the ropes as far as science is concerned.

Darwin has been dead 127 years. Biology, geology, physics, genetics, astronomy and cosmology are doing just fine though.

wihout \Him ther really isn't much point or purpose to anything.
If there is tell me what it is .

For me when I look up at a starry sky on a clear night and understand that each speck of light is a sun an immense distance away - and that small smudge below Cassiopea is another galaxy as it appeared some 2.2 million years ago - I feel how brief, rare and precious life is. I do what can to understand this world and make this brief time as safe and pleasant for me, my fellow travellers and especially my descendants, as I can. That seems to me to be a worthwhile purpose.

[A Person]

Welcome to my world William Joseph.

Well since you're back, how about telling us what a hyperbolic chamber is? Or is that below the belt?

[BecauseHeLives]

Welcome to my world William Joseph.

Well since you're back, how about telling us what a hyperbolic chamber is? Or is that below the belt?

Its the same thing as a hyperbaric chamber except that when its used in conversation with atheists it tends to turn them into arrogant pompous grammar Nazis. My Google spell checker changed the spelling from hyperbaric to hyperbolic. Try it.

[antifascist]

BHL, mistakes happen. When you failed to notice your mistake and ridiculed others for not knowing what you were trying to say, as opposed to what you actually said, you left yourself open to ridicule. Now you quickly invoke Godwin's Law and call others nazis. Once again, you have demonstrated the thin skin common to christian zealots.



BTW, the defense: "Google spell check made me do it," is lame. It's just about as lame as the Twinkie defense. In retrospect, however, it is true to form. kudos on consistency BHL!

[A Person]

I understand you made a mistake. It's easy to confuse terms you are unfamiliar with, which is why I pointed it out - with a humorous dig that gave you a hint as to why you were wrong.

Ooooh I love it when you talk all sciency - without having a clue. A hyperbolic chamber would presumably be one full of exaggeration. So that's why people lived so long and grew so big. They exaggerated.

But instead of thinking, "Hmm, A Person is usually right when it comes to science, I had better check my information" (as everybody else did when they read the post) you doubled down with:

Obviously you do not know what a hyperbolic chamber actually is. That's ok. I'm used to you pretending to know what you are talking about.

and then even told me

Ever heard of Google?

In retrospect I'm sure you can see the irony.

Blaming Google spell check is, as antifascist says, lame. Google spell check does not change words, it suggests them. If I took every suggestion it made, you would be NHL throughout.

BHL2.gif (7.32 KiB) Viewed 63 times

Far from being a Grammar Nazi, words have meaning - that is their function. If you use the wrong ones your meaning is lost or perverted - especially if it's a technical term. Just look up hyperthermia and hypothermia.

Anyway, thanks for the apology, are you ready to discuss the physics of a water canapé now?

[BecauseHeLives]

Oh, I never apologized AP. I was expecting one from you for attacking the spelling instead of the topic. I had hyperbaric spelled correctly at first but the Google spellcheck didn't recognize it and instead suggested it as hyperbolic. So why should I apologize for you being a d--k? For some reason it brings you great pleasure to point out somebody else's spelling errors. I wonder why that is.... Oh wait! I know. Ad hominem

[A Person]

A spelling mistake would be 'hypobaric' or hyperboric'. Substituting a different (if vaguely similar) word and then ridiculing people for not knowing what it means and suggesting they Google it (which YOU obviously didn't do) is why you were ridiculed in return. If, after my response to your mistake, you has simple said "My bad, I meant hyperbaric, (darned Google spell checker )" we could have all had a laugh and moved on

Imagine if the roles were reversed

A Person: Your episiotomy is suspect
BHL: Oh no, is that going to affect my sex life
A Person: Obviously you do not know what an episiotomy actually is. That's ok. I'm used to you pretending to know what you are talking about. Try Googling it.

It is not an ad-hominem argument to ask someone to explain a term they used that you do not know or seems to have been misused - especially in a discussion about science, where using the right terms is important.

[BecauseHeLives]

I accept your apology AP.

[A Person]

You're welcome. While I'm at it please accept my apologies for you confusing billions of years with thousands. It was unreasonable of me to expect you to know the difference and we all know what the evil Magic 8 Ball spellchecker does when you're not looking.

Billions, thousands, who cares

billions.gif (11.25 KiB) Viewed 49 times

[BecauseHeLives]

Don't beat yourself up over it AP. I forgive you. We all are born with an evil heart.

[william joseph]

I wrote "The fact is you are resisting something that seems to assert a lot of pressure upon you."

-A PERSON- responded
"yes, it's called the religious. Not god, the people who claim to speak for him and impose their bronze age mythology and prohibitions on everyone else "

O.K i understand you better now. When i resisted God it was the God of the bible with all of His restrictions. So when say I now beleive in God i Mean this very God that is described very thouroughly in scripture through use of words and types.
So when you say you are resisiting not God but those who claim to speak for Him you mean specifically Moses, ther prophets, Jesus Christ and the eye witnesses of the Life, teaching and resurection of Christ. Of course way down the line come people like me who belive what has been recorded by these people who speak for God.

Are you open then to the concept of God that must by neccesity be totaly different from this proclaimed one?
What is he or she or it like. If you think there may be a God at all can anyone really know what He is like?

[william joseph]

-A PERSON- wrote
“For me when I look up at a starry sky on a clear night and understand that each speck of light is a sun an immense distance away - and that small smudge below Cassiopea is another galaxy as it appeared some 2.2 million years ago - I feel how brief, rare and precious life is. I do what can to understand this world and make this brief time as safe and pleasant for me, my fellow travellers and especially my descendants, as I can. That seems to me to be a worthwhile purpose.”

Well i can relate to most of this. It is a gift and privelige even to be able to speak with each other here. I agree!!
For a Christian all of these things (timelines aside) are bound up in one reality. God exists and is the Primary PERSONALITY he has made himself known and It isn't about living by resptrictions and i will admit that in our Christian zealousness we can come off sounding simple, narrowminded and unlearned.
A child can beleive in God and not know that a hyperbaric chamber is a highly oxigenated pressurised environment that aids the body in healing is used for divers with the bends and that such an environment may aid putting forth certain postualtions put by scientsist to explain certian things with regard to creation.

But the reality is that a child can experience the wonders of God. all the things we see and desire that are pure and noble are so good. Then again with all of this capacity to see true good ,humans are so prone to violence evil and destruction. even in the name of religion.
the more i see of God the more i know the sin and evil in my own heart. Not because of brainwasing but beause of the greatness of a God who is willing to make himself known and to even rescue me from my own desire to be an atonomous being. We were created to be dependant upon Him and here in lies our purpose. Eternal relationship with an eternal God in Love. I am a traveller to but i know the destination and I know the way, not because i am so great or good but because God has moved in my heart and has brought me to Himself. i have no scientific explainatin to tell you why. and the answer certiainly has nothing to do with my own goodness.

[A Person]

So when you say you are resisiting not God but those who claim to speak for Him you mean specifically Moses, ther prophets, Jesus Christ and the eye witnesses of the Life, teaching and resurection of Christ.

Firstly talk of 'resisiting' or even resisting you are using loaded language. It is not a case of resisting any more than you are 'resisting the idea of invisible pink unicorns taking your socks.

God's prophets, specifically Moses and Mohamed are as good evidence against them speaking for God as could be imagined. They are violent tribal warlords that reflect the character of the God of the Old Testament. Jesus seems to be very different. The suggestion that he is somehow a part of the OT God seems to be absurd. It's a pity so few Christians pay any attention to his teachings and prefer the morality of Moses and Paul.

Are you open then to the concept of God that must by neccesity be totaly different from this proclaimed one?
What is he or she or it like. If you think there may be a God at all can anyone really know what He is like?

Yes I am open to that concept which would be deism or 'Spinoza's God'. However if we're talking of a god that no one can know then trying to guess what such a god might want us to do is pointless. Since all religions claim to know God and what God demands they are also pointless.

A child can beleive in God and not know that a hyperbaric chamber is a highly oxigenated pressurised environment that aids the body in healing is used for divers with the bends and that such an environment may aid putting forth certain postualtions put by scientsist to explain certian things with regard to creation.

Not quite correct. A hyperbaric chamber is simply air under high pressure, oxygen is present at the same proportions as air. Some creationists have put forward fanciful hypotheses about a vapour or water canopy in order to reconcile Genesis with what we know about reality. I'm quite willing to discuss why those hypotheses have been soundly shown to be incompatible with life

Children believe in all sorts of things, like Santa, the Easter Bunny and invisible friends. Some grow out of it, some keep one of their childhood fantasies into adulthood.

[A Person]

When I said "the people who claim to speak for him and impose their bronze age mythology and prohibitions on everyone else ", this was the kind of person I had in mind.

[youtubevideo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsKRccvcrK4[/youtubevideo]

[BecauseHeLives]

God's Word speaks for itself yet you still won't listen to it either.

[A Person]

it's amazing how with only twelve words you can get so much wrong.

[william joseph]

Well O.K.....

that guy is just weird. Is he for real?
Thankfully he could never be a person who takes office.
We can both write that person off in His approach. he is a casualty of American religiousity at it's worst and in all seriousness should probably recieve good counseling.

Jesus entire minstry was to clarify the entirety of Gods message. When asked whatthe greatest commandment was He said to "love God with all you soul mind and strength and you neighbour as yourself.
He did not introduce a new God.

The only reason jesus can be accepted as Messaih in the minds of any (Including my own) is because of veryspecific prophetic fulfilment in His own Life. Where he was born, what He would do and most importantly he said that he came to do the will of His father. He wasn't meaning Joseph but God the God of the Old testament.

It really is the crosswork that he means. It was God's desire to make a way for us to be forgiven. It was God who carried it out.
Jesus must by neccesity be representing the O.T God of the Bible. He doesn't leave any other choice for us.

When He said "Hear oh Israel the Lord your God is one God" He was making reference to the O.T scriptures and the God of the O.T.

[A Person]

Jesus must by neccesity be representing the O.T God of the Bible. He doesn't leave any other choice for us.

Oh there are lots of choices. Most of them come down to Jesus not actually being part of a triune God.

The only reason jesus can be accepted as Messaih in the minds of any (Including my own) is because of very specific prophetic fulfilment in His own Life. Where he was born, what He would do and most importantly he said that he came to do the will of His father.

Yet the evidence of this prophetic fulfilment is so very weak and so very contrived. It is easy to fulfil prophecy when the story is written by people one or two generations after the fact. Even then they get their stories wrong. The nativity story has no historical support and seems to be invention. The 'born of a virgin' prophecy was a translation error. Isiah talks of 'almah' i.e. 'young woman' not 'bethulah', which does mean virgin. Isaiah used bethula in 23:12, where he refers to the "virgin daughter of Zidon". Matthew even has Jesus riding two asses to fulfil a prophecy. We have Roman soldiers gambling over his clothes for no other reason than to fulfil prophecy. When the Bible says "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" then we can hardly be impressed by the fulfilment. If some fanatical politician demands people have 666 tattooed on their foreheads it does not validate the prophet merely the politician's desire to comply with it.

Jesus entire ministry was to clarify the entirety of Gods message

Jesus ministry was so far removed from the Old Testament philosophy that it hardly qualifies as 'clarifying'. Jesus message of loving and forgiveness is alien to the vengeful and proscriptive Old Testament. According to BHL we are under dispensation of grace and can safely ignore virtually all of God's wishes as laid down in the OT. That's not a clarification it's obliteration.

[william joseph]

Jesus did not introduce a new God or a new concept of God.

He introduced a new agreement. A new covanent. Jesus reveals more of God not a new God.
All of the animal sacrifices were a bloody mess. they were not sufficient to provide forgiveness. The point of all the blood was to reinforce the reality that what we deserve "Death" a real penalty for real sin was transfered to another inocent life by a gracious and merciful God who has taken fallen man and made a rteal way through attonment.

Was it fair? No. Those unblemished animals were inocent.
Is is fair that Jesus Christ died? No. He was inocent. what`s fair is that I should die and be seperated from the Life of God. But true to the nature of God to substitute the inocent for the repentant guilty it is only reasonable that he himself would have to make up for the debt to pay the wages of sin (Death).

Genisis 3:15 is a promise of final victory. a Victory over death and sin. This promise has been from the begining. It is God who wuold perform it. If jesus is not this fullfillment then who is?
Jesus is either a total fraud decieving the people about His relationship to God ,"i and the Father are one" or He is telling the truth. If He`s lying or if you think he is lying then it would be the most logical thing for you to do to reject His every word.
Jesus can not be seperated from the O.T God. He never seperated Himself from Him so if we do we are out to lunch and I say you will have to remove all of His teaching especialy the sermon on the mount .
The Charge braought against Jesus by the establishment was that he blasphemed the God of the O.T. by making himself out to be God.
Was the claim true or false.

[william joseph]

The Christian message was received and undersdtood as being the work of God now come to completion through th e long awaited messiah.



Acts 17:10-12 (ESV)
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

The scriptures examinied were those of the O.T.
These Bareans were verifying the claims of Christ through the O.T. prohecies and types given in the O.T.
If jesus were to be found in non compliance with the God of the O.T or to have fallen short of being in continuity with the O.T God they would have certainly rejected Him (and rightly so).

Jesus was kind, gentle and loving but He also talked about the wrath of God and eternal judgement.

John the Baptist was not corrected by Jesus when he identified Jesus to be "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". That is a sacrificail Lamb. a lamb slaughtered to take away sins.

[A Person]

He introduced a new agreement. A new covanent.

Nothing a god does with humans is an agreement or covenant. An agreement is an arrangement that is accepted by all parties to a transaction. A god dictates conditions to humans.

Jesus reveals more of God not a new God.
All of the animal sacrifices were a bloody mess. they were not sufficient to provide forgiveness. The point of all the blood was to reinforce the reality that what we deserve "Death" a real penalty for real sin was transfered to another inocent life by a gracious and merciful God who has taken fallen man and made a rteal way through attonment.

If you can step outside the Abrahamic mindset and just look at what you typed then you might have a glimmer of why talking of a 'gracious and merciful God' at the same time as 'bloody animal sacrifices' and the taking of an innocent life as atonement is so unconvincing. God demanded animal and human sacrifice - and an inch of foreskin. He rewarded his chosen people for it and encouraged them to wage war and genocide.

If they were 'not sufficient to provide forgiveness' (and as BHL says impossible to live up to) then it was hardly 'gracious' of him to demand them.

Jesus is either a total fraud decieving the people about His relationship to God ,"i and the Father are one" or He is telling the truth. If He`s lying or if you think he is lying then it would be the most logical thing for you to do to reject His every word.

Or he was misreported, misunderstood or deluded - to mention just a few alternatives. Many people are deluded in some areas yet capable of valuable insight in others. Rejecting their every word is overly drastic.

The Charge braought against Jesus by the establishment was that he blasphemed the God of the O.T. by making himself out to be God.

Several charges were laid against Jesus - but do not forget there were essentially two trials - the Sanhedrin heard by the Jewish authorities and secondly the hearing before Pilate to ask for punishment. Jesus was charged with sedition - claiming to be the King Of Jews and calling for the destruction of the temple as well as blasphemy - claiming to be the son of god. But they were also clearly afraid that a messianic and rebellious group might prompt the Romans to realiate on all Jews:
John
11:46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

That may well have been true, but whatever the truth, Pilate was apparently not persuaded that Jesus had done anything wrong and he was a lot closer to the facts than we are.

[william Joseph]

a person wrote
If you can step outside the Abrahamic mindset and just look at what you typed then you might have a glimmer of why talking of a 'gracious and merciful God' at the same time as 'bloody animal sacrifices' and the taking of an innocent life as atonement is so unconvincing. God demanded animal and human sacrifice - and an inch of foreskin. He rewarded his chosen people for it and encouraged them to wage war and genocide.

I purposely and knowingly aknowledged the violence that is a part of a blood covenant. It is violent. The violence cannot be ignored. The violence is not incidental it is primary. It is punitive and it doesn`t belong to the animals it belongs to us. We deserve to die. When we sin against God we are in a sense doing violence against our creator. We are saying i wish you were not in existence. When we create a God that we desire (idolotary ) we are saying to the real God (Die) i will serve another and i will call him or it or her "God").
One of the temptations Jesus faced was to worship another God. Jesus however did not serve that false god (the devil). It was to the commandmants that he appealed "

8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]" 11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

It is not a matter of stepping outside of the Abrahamic covenant so that i can understand a higher form of righteousness. One inwhich there is no violence. Violence has been done we have violated God that is the universal and highest travesty that may occour. Violence is to violate by force. To live in God's world andf fail to worship Him is to violate every commandmant and every moral Law. The violene is ours.it is a matter of perfect righteousness we are the ones owing we are the ones falling short.
To provide a substitute from His own resources (for he owns the cattle on a thousandf hills) while trying to reinforce the point of our violation while forgiving our violence is a great mercy.
Jesus was a willing sacrific to this system and spoke to His closest followers on that point often . they even argued that it should not be so (Peter), but Jesus assured them that this was the fathers will.

The New convanent is a finnished work, a final sacrifice ,a bloody sacrifice. God's own son. He used His own resoursec to save a sinners like me. JESUS DECLARED "this is the New Covanent IN MY BLOOD"

Read more: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7549&start=50#ixzz0P9SV9sQm
-

[A Person]

I purposely and knowingly aknowledged the violence that is a part of a blood covenant. It is violent. The violence cannot be ignored. The violence is not incidental it is primary. It is punitive and it doesn`t belong to the animals it belongs to us.

Yet it is the animals that are the victims. In what way does this support the concept of a 'gracious and merciful God'? Sounds more like a bloodspattered demon to me.

We deserve to die

And we will.

One of the temptations Jesus faced was to worship another God. Jesus however did not serve that false god (the devil). It was to the commandmants that he appealed "

8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]" 11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

Why do you find this impressive? Since you believe Jesus is god and Jesus believed himself to be god, what could Satan offer him that he didn't already have?

All in all, I can see no moral standard in a philosophy that revels in shedding the blood of someone else. As an argument for graciousness and mercy it falls flat on its face in a pool of blood.

[William Joseph]

I underastand your abhorance to the notions set forward inscripture of attonment by blood. I understand your abhorance to the violence inflicted upon innocent animals. But you have limmited your view of death as it relates to the effects of judgenment for sin to something that falls short of the scriptural notion.

When I put forward the scriptural notion that "the wages of sin is death" i am speaking of the primary definition of death. This primary oblective definition is a God ordained one . When God pronounces the judgment to be a thing called death He also owns the definition. Death is not defined by us. Though we may ignore it's full reality for a time.we are the subjects of this objective reality, It involves more than "passing away" as so many have politely cloaked the term and you are right we all die.
But that is not the complete concept. the completed concept of death is dark it is Spiritual darkness, it is seperation from the author of life while still in a conscious existence.
It is this death that God is so willing to rescue us from through the use of specific means. he has not violated His own moral perfection by chosing to rescue us through attonment. he maintains the standard " the wages of sin is death" and moves that judgment upon himself ultimately in Christ.
The animals that were created were created by and for the use of God and man. As a preliminary measure ,animals of God's choice were to demonstrate a concept that pointed to the ultimate sacrifical death of a perfect sinless human (of God's chosing) who would willingly give himself to once and for all settle the accounts of those who would submit to this way of attonment leading to restored relationship to God.
Our concept of justice is skewed at some point in our history we became victims and not perpetrators.

I confess that i bring into the argument the notion that we are" made in the image of God" and that "we are of much more value than many sparrows". That is to say that we are also the subjects of the objective reality that we have been made to be superior to all of creation yet under the authority of God.
So if for a time God used the creation to demonstrate His right to Give life and take it away, is he morally at fault. No. If He rescues people from the eternal death that they deserve through the sacrificial attonment of His own willing son is he unjust? No.
If in the moral perfection of His willing son death had no legitimate hold on Him is god wrong for raising him from death ? No Jesus went willingly but it was not easy. Remember the garden of Gethsemane.

[A Person]

I underastand your abhorance to the notions set forward inscripture of attonment by blood. I understand your abhorance to the violence inflicted upon innocent animals.

Animal sacrifice doesn't bother me too much. The animal is usually killed quickly and it's really no different to killing for food as far as the animal's innocence except that it's a criminal waste to burn the food (although it seemed the priests grew fat on it). It's what it says about the person performing or ordering the bloodshed that does.

Lev.1:5: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood and sprinkle the blood all around on the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of meeting." Lev.4:6: The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil of the sanctuary. Lev.4:30: Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. Heb 9:19: For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people. Judges 11:30-31 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering...11:34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

The idea of scapegoating and killing another to atone for your sins is an immoral concept. Not immoral Biblically of course, it's a fundamental concept to all of the Abrahamic faiths, but immoral to any thinking and reasoning person. Every person is responsible and accountable for their actions. No amount of blood sprinkled on people, books and draperies can change that whether it be real goat blood or symbolic wine and crackers.

You still haven't explained why you find any of this persuasive evidence of a gracious and merciful god. If it was a person demanding we kill people and animals and splash around in the blood around we would have no hesitation in declaring the person dangerously unbalanced and find a padded room. But if it's an imaginary person talking to you through a book written by people then it suddenly becomes amazing and wonderful. And yet you wonder why people find it unbelievable?