So let us try again with an actual concept
06 Jul 2011, 12:10 am
Jeremiah 32 is an extremely intriguing chapter.
Take a look at a part of it:
The children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD. For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face, Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Now this is El Shaddai El Señor [multilingual wit] talking about his chosen folks. Who were not exactly good even by antitheist standards - not many antitheists will endorse sacrificing children, though the antiatheists might accuse them of such. And we notice that the Boss is not endorsing their behavior and in fact is kind of miffed.
06 Jul 2011, 12:18 am
And from the NT, in Matthew 7:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Now this is Greasy Josh, my lord and my God. And he is talking to people who feel they belong to his fan club, and he is not prezackly pleased with their goings on. And surprise, he rejects them and their doings.
06 Jul 2011, 12:20 am
Take a look at a part of it:
The children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD. For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face, Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Now this is El Shaddai El Señor [multilingual wit] talking about his chosen folks. Who were not exactly good even by antitheist standards - not many antitheists will endorse sacrificing children, though the antiatheists might accuse them of such. And we notice that the Boss is not endorsing their behavior and in fact is kind of miffed.
A most surprising action from a being who not only is all powerful but claims to be able to foresee the outcome of all events. Anger is an emotion the organism utilizes to generate violent reaction. Someone in total control would, it seems to me, be totally competent to calmly remedy all events.
06 Jul 2011, 12:27 am
Yeah, I am wordy, but if you are going to discuss concepts you can;t just link to a comical Youtube.
So here is a place where we see a real use for the scriptures. Because there are in there embedded messages and links to sites in the heavenlies.
Here we see OT and NT concurring - BEING IN THE ORGANIZATION - ASSUMING YOU ARE CHRISTIAN - or educated or progressive or environmentalist - does not mean you follow the principles or satisfy the criteria.
In a brief - mes amis, leave us not go thinking God endorses all everybody does. It is not true. We are all sinners - some of us try harder.
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
06 Jul 2011, 5:40 am
"Many are chosen, but few get up." -Erma Bombeck
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
06 Jul 2011, 8:42 am
Youtube is good and can be very useful. To your credit, you at least refrain from posting youtube responses out of plain silliness. I like to use it primarily as a sounding board for what I do musically and I like it better than soundcloud. The visual aspect makes a tremendous difference in the perception of the performance, even if the "performance" is a fixed recording like I'm doing with NASA images.
I don't mind youtube if there's an actual point being made. I find silly cartoons lampooning certain ideas to be low class, though, and I'd like to think people in PPR could do better.
There was a post a while back using an older animation to briefly describe beliefs held by Mormons and Witnesses. While I did find it amusing and somewhat biased, it seemed to be quite well done and had an air of seriousness to it.
06 Jul 2011, 9:50 am
What? Is God complaining that he got up early? God sleeps? Rising up from whence?
Linguistics helps here. You need to understand how certain languages.
Think English - "So he up and says to the Chairman, 'That proposal is just silly"
That up in there - COULD mean he actually rose to his feet. Could just mean he initiated action perhaps unexpectedly.
"Why did you have to go and do that?"
It COULD mean he went somewhere - more likely it is just a filler word specifying at best that we assume he intended to do it.
In many languages - as here in the Biblical Hebrew - verbs specifying a time of day are used adverbially - "he MORNINGED and wrote a letter - roughly equalling he wrote a letter in the morning.
So what is going on here is God [using human language because what else do we have] is stressing that he kept on doing it over an extended period.
Unless one is a literalist far beyond any actual "near-literalist" - I say again a consistent literal interpretation is untenable and nobody has tried it - this in no way implies God took a nap.
06 Jul 2011, 9:56 am
What? Is God complaining that he got up early? God sleeps? Rising up from whence?
Linguistics helps here. You need to understand how certain languages.
Think English - "So he up and says to the Chairman, 'That proposal is just silly"
That up in there - COULD mean he actually rose to his feet. Could just mean he initiated action perhaps unexpectedly.
"Why did you have to go and do that?"
It COULD mean he went somewhere - more likely it is just a filler word specifying at best that we assume he intended to do it.
In many languages - as here in the Biblical Hebrew - verbs specifying a time of day are used adverbially - "he MORNINGED and wrote a letter - roughly equalling he wrote a letter in the morning.
So what is going on here is God [using human language because what else do we have] is stressing that he kept on doing it over an extended period.
Unless one is a literalist far beyond any actual "near-literalist" - I say again a consistent literal interpretation is untenable and nobody has tried it - this in no way implies God took a nap.
And why couldn't God take a nap? If on the last day he rested, how did he rest? Or does rest not translate?
06 Jul 2011, 11:07 am
Certainly God COULD perform the equivalent of taking a nap, a break, a siesta, a vacation - the more so since outside time it would not affect the process.
My point - which as usual, not having the resources of a first language speaker of American English, you fail to grasp - is that the text does not give evidence that he DID take a nap.
If you read it again, looking each word up, you may see that.
06 Jul 2011, 12:29 pm
My point - which as usual, not having the resources of a first language speaker of American English, you fail to grasp - is that the text does not give evidence that he DID take a nap.
If you read it again, looking each word up, you may see that.
And do you believe that every action of God is related in the Biblical text? Can you say he didn't take a nap, sneeze on occasion, fart in an elevator, brush his teeth in the morning, etc. Can you say definitely He didn't?
06 Jul 2011, 12:54 pm
My point - which as usual, not having the resources of a first language speaker of American English, you fail to grasp - is that the text does not give evidence that he DID take a nap.
If you read it again, looking each word up, you may see that.
And do you believe that every action of God is related in the Biblical text? Can you say he didn't take a nap, sneeze on occasion, fart in an elevator, brush his teeth in the morning, etc. Can you say definitely He didn't?
If you want to prove that you do not stop to read, there are less humiliating ways to do it. Try again:
My point - which as usual, not having the resources of a first language speaker of American English, you fail to grasp - is that the text does not give evidence that he DID take a nap.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
06 Jul 2011, 1:14 pm
My point - which as usual, not having the resources of a first language speaker of American English, you fail to grasp - is that the text does not give evidence that he DID take a nap.
If you read it again, looking each word up, you may see that.
And do you believe that every action of God is related in the Biblical text? Can you say he didn't take a nap, sneeze on occasion, fart in an elevator, brush his teeth in the morning, etc. Can you say definitely He didn't?
If you want to prove that you do not stop to read, there are less humiliating ways to do it. Try again:
My point - which as usual, not having the resources of a first language speaker of American English, you fail to grasp - is that the text does not give evidence that he DID take a nap.
arrogant much?
so if there is no evidence that he took a nap, he didnt?
but if there is a god and there is no evidence there is a god, there is?
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
06 Jul 2011, 1:36 pm
arrogant much?
so if there is no evidence that he took a nap, he didnt?
but if there is a god and there is no evidence there is a god, there is?
It is not arrogance ro recognize an insincere and / or ignorant heckler who like the LA idiot has chosen to latch onto me.
There is no evidence IN THE TEXT that God took a nap - in fact, there is no claim in the text that God took a nap.
There is in the text the repeated and varied claim that God exists and did a variety of things. The bald statement in the text of course is not in and of itself conclusive evidence. As Joseph Smith and Mohammad and Helen Schucman have amply demonstrated, anybody can put together a holy book.
The evidence for God's existence - that which I have observed myself and the reports of large numbers of credible witnesses [and of course I know, as repeatedly shown here, that one man's competent witness is anothers witless nincompoop] is separate from the Bible. If God does not exist, the collection is worth little more than the Ugaritic literature and the Urantia Book.
Though, as I have pointed out separately, there are elements in the texts NOT typical of mythic or folk literature which are consistent with a divinely inspired sourcde AFTER one gives credit to the existence of a divine entity.
06 Jul 2011, 5:54 pm
arrogant much?
so if there is no evidence that he took a nap, he didnt?
but if there is a god and there is no evidence there is a god, there is?
It is not arrogance ro recognize an insincere and / or ignorant heckler who like the LA idiot has chosen to latch onto me.
There is no evidence IN THE TEXT that God took a nap - in fact, there is no claim in the text that God took a nap.
There is in the text the repeated and varied claim that God exists and did a variety of things. The bald statement in the text of course is not in and of itself conclusive evidence. As Joseph Smith and Mohammad and Helen Schucman have amply demonstrated, anybody can put together a holy book.
The evidence for God's existence - that which I have observed myself and the reports of large numbers of credible witnesses [and of course I know, as repeatedly shown here, that one man's competent witness is anothers witless nincompoop] is separate from the Bible. If God does not exist, the collection is worth little more than the Ugaritic literature and the Urantia Book.
Though, as I have pointed out separately, there are elements in the texts NOT typical of mythic or folk literature which are consistent with a divinely inspired sourcde AFTER one gives credit to the existence of a divine entity.
All I said was that the Bible does not record every moment of existence and therefore its record does not exclude possible unmentioned occurrences. Your fury at my indication that things not mentioned might have occurred is evidence of something rather peculiar.
I leave it up to you what that peculiarity might be.
Your indication that the existence of God for you is determined by witnesses satisfactory to you in no way demands that those witnesses are satisfactory to anybody else.
