Posts by Viviane

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

As as far as the insinuation that I'm lazy and have not read the bible, I'll let that stand on its own merit. I spend a great deal of time studying the bible, and I was aware of all the information in the previous post above.

Then you shouldn't have claimed the phrase was unique to Jesus and the NT.

So I get the sense I may have made you feel insulted somehow and if so I apologize. I was in a hurry this morning trying to get out and go somewhere, so it's possible I didn't express myself properly.

No, you just made an incorrect claim and stood by it.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

My point is that if scientifically ALL possibilities must be looked at.

Not even close. Not how science works. Before you jump into biology, take a class on basic scientific education first. Your grasp of science is woefully lacking.

In order to look at all possibilities, you must consider an infinite number of combinations, for instance, that a rhino made of pigs is responsible for creation, or that drywall spackle is, or that life sprang from nothing with no cause, or that life came from a collision of an ice cream truck and a comet while having lunch in the core of a neutron star.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

I was curious if what I would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened. Well it hasn't, at all.

It also won't show you magical unicorns. You are looking for something that doesn't exist.

I wonder are athiests convinced life (on planet Earth and life as we know it) convinced that it all happened by chance?

What does being an atheist have to do with not believing life started by chance?

I'd say some type of other life was responsible for us.

OK, how this their life get started? That's not an answer at all....

In biology class, when talking about plants, going over how fruit trees make fruit sweet to attract animals to eat it so it spreads it's seeds, etc. There is some type of intelligence in that.

Why?

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

well all I can tell you is I've read this in several works of scholars, so unless you have a doctorate or masters in classical language and such things I'm going to trust the more educated sources telling me this phrase, the one specifically used by Christ, was unique to him and unaccounted for.

I've opened the Bible and seen it. Not my fault if you are too lazy to do that.

11

The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.

by Island Man in

"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.

for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.

therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.

Viviane

The kind of people that believe God when he says that there will be judgment after death will appreciate this requirement if their family demands that they do things or believe things in a way that is disobedient to God

Saying that there is judgement after death is like telling a woman how much she enjoys being raped will determine how much she enjoys sex after the rape.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

scholars can't account for the origination of the phrase Son of Man. It's unique to Christ himself.

Huh? The phrase appears in Ezra, Psalms, Daniel, Ezekiel and many other places, including extra-Biblical sources, usually carrying no indication of divinity. It's not even remotely right to say it's unique to Jesus.

They call it an ideolect, and he only used it when referencing himself. So when Christ asked, who are they saying the son of man is? It was the same as him saying, who are they saying I am?

Jesus was written to have often used the phrase "son of man" in reference to someone other than himself. It's an interesting conflict in the gospels.

son of man is not a phrase found anywhere else at that time, and when he said it it was not a reference to the Old Testament references to someone like A son of man, which is a different phrase.

That is patently untrue.

15

Truth behind the arrogance

by abiather in

in our personal lives we have experienced that it is the inner elements (thoughts, feelings, emotions ...) that ultimately influence a relationships rather the outer elements (what we say or do)!

these inner elements are more powerful and faster than the outer elements!.

when i was with jws, it is their stubbornness and arrogance that i felt more than the outer elements.

Viviane

Speciality of truth is that it is always revealed at the right moment and at the right place-most of the time without the help of an outside agency. One doesn’t need to be concerned about proving it.

Interestingly (or not, as the case may be), that's the exact same stubbornness and arrogance you accuse others of.

70

Be nice to theists - they are victims of their genes

by cofty in

identical twin studies show there is a strong inheritable component to religiosity.

thomas bouchard studied identical and fraternal twins raised apart and tested them on religious attitudes.. the correlation for the former turned out to be 62% compared to just 2% for the latter.

his colleague.

Viviane

I start my world view with the bible and the bible supports this finding,
that people believing in God is genetic.
I have read the bible cover to cover 7 times since leaving the Watchtower and the predominant theme
I found in the bible is predestination.

Predestination isn't genetic, in fact, predestination removes any iota of free-will and would remove any possible genetic component.]

so according to the scriptures some can not help believing and some can not help unbelieving.
And now science and genetics is supporting this biblical view.

Those verses say God decides, also removing a genetic component.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

According to the text Jesus called Himself, "Son of Man" in verse 13. Without verbal prompting Peter elevated the Son of Man to Son of God by verse 16.

Let's look...

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Notice that Jesus NEVER says he is the Son of Man, nor does Peter say that the Son of Man is the Son of God. This is a classic example of Christians stringing things together and claiming the Bible says something it doesn't. Jesus asks about the Son of Man and then about himself. Two diferent questions, two different answers with Jesus never claiming to be either nor claiming to be God.

70

Be nice to theists - they are victims of their genes

by cofty in

identical twin studies show there is a strong inheritable component to religiosity.

thomas bouchard studied identical and fraternal twins raised apart and tested them on religious attitudes.. the correlation for the former turned out to be 62% compared to just 2% for the latter.

his colleague.

Viviane

I agree with KateWild—sounds logical and more reasonable.

Individual anecdotes aren't representative of a large group.