OK. Why does god need our love?
He doesn't o.O
What do you think about the Revelation?
[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1312061666' post='4842641']
OK. Why does god need our love?
He doesn't o.O
[/quote]
I'm starting to wonder if you are a troll.
[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]
[/font]
Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1312067909' post='4842668']
[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1312061666' post='4842641']
OK. Why does god need our love?
He doesn't o.O
[/quote]
I'm starting to wonder if you are a troll.
[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]
[/font]
Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
[/quote]
Seriously?!? Is it really that difficult to understand? That says nothing about God needing our love, just that we are to love him. You're reading more into it then is there, as many do.
[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1312105746' post='4842789']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1312067909' post='4842668']
[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1312061666' post='4842641']
OK. Why does god need our love?
He doesn't o.O
[/quote]
I'm starting to wonder if you are a troll.
[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]
[/font]
Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
[/quote]
Seriously?!? Is it really that difficult to understand? That says nothing about God needing our love, just that we are to love him. You're reading more into it then is there, as many do.
[/quote]
Look up 'need' in the dictionary.
To make it easier for you: why does god require our love?
[quote name='Machaira' timestamp='1312120575' post='4842825']
Seriously?!? Is it really that difficult to understand? That says nothing about God needing our love, just that we are to love him. You're reading more into it then is there, as many do.
Look up 'need' in the dictionary.
To make it easier for you: why does god require our love?
[/quote]
[font=arial, sans-serif][size=2][color=#666666]Verb: Require (something) because it is essential or very important: "I need help now".[/font][font=arial, sans-serif][size=2]
[color=#666666]Noun: Circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity[/quote]
God requires our love to grant us salvation. He doesn't need it for himself.[/font]
Author
Of course God doesn't need our love. It's the other way around, we need a loving relationship with Him. All those commands are for the benefit of man entirely, God doesn't need anything, he could spend all his time blowing up galaxies or something for all he cared.
Of course you might say 'I don't need that', but many times people have poor judgement. Take for instance Brain in A Vat, who believes his mind is not fundamentally different from a TiVo or a vacuum cleaner. That's a pretty sad state to be in. And no,his blabberings about the subject don't have evidence that support them; the issue runs quite deep. I'm reading right now a marvellous and well-sold greek book of a famous astrophysicist "I Komi Tis Verenikis" that deals with astronomy,cosmology,evolution and sociology and he poses the question 'can just the increase in calculations complexity of the brain give rise to what we define as the conscious mind, with the abilities to self-reflect and introspect?'. And his answer is 'probably, no'. But of course he is a wise man, not some adolescent that discovered Logic 101 last year and wants to shove his naive ideas to everyone's throat. But I digress...
Another point: There are things in the OT that disgust me too. There's this passage about a man that was gathering sticks on Saturday and was put to death. Now, does that sit well with anyone? I hope not. Where's mercy and forgiveness? Put a human being, a precious life to an end because of a ceremonial law? Wasn't Jesus that said 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath'? Now what I say will probably horrify most Christians, but I don't care as I'm not really a part of any denomination, my faith is personal: It is very possible that the vast compilation of books that is the OT was edited and re-edited hundreds of times, with passages edited, deleted or even added by,say, the Sanhedrin. In this case, what is described here is possible that never happened: The Sanhedrin(or whoever else) added it to 'scare' the Jews into proper observation of the Sabbath. That's only a theory, but it is a logical assumption. And now, you might say, how do you know what part of the OT is the word of God and what is man-made? Well, the same way as ever: Using your mind. I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me. And so it is for me. I'm sure most Christians would not agree, but there you go.
Of course you might say 'I don't need that', but many times people have poor judgement. Take for instance Brain in A Vat, who believes his mind is not fundamentally different from a TiVo or a vacuum cleaner. That's a pretty sad state to be in. And no,his blabberings about the subject don't have evidence that support them; the issue runs quite deep. I'm reading right now a marvellous and well-sold greek book of a famous astrophysicist "I Komi Tis Verenikis" that deals with astronomy,cosmology,evolution and sociology and he poses the question 'can just the increase in calculations complexity of the brain give rise to what we define as the conscious mind, with the abilities to self-reflect and introspect?'. And his answer is 'probably, no'. But of course he is a wise man, not some adolescent that discovered Logic 101 last year and wants to shove his naive ideas to everyone's throat. But I digress...
Another point: There are things in the OT that disgust me too. There's this passage about a man that was gathering sticks on Saturday and was put to death. Now, does that sit well with anyone? I hope not. Where's mercy and forgiveness? Put a human being, a precious life to an end because of a ceremonial law? Wasn't Jesus that said 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath'? Now what I say will probably horrify most Christians, but I don't care as I'm not really a part of any denomination, my faith is personal: It is very possible that the vast compilation of books that is the OT was edited and re-edited hundreds of times, with passages edited, deleted or even added by,say, the Sanhedrin. In this case, what is described here is possible that never happened: The Sanhedrin(or whoever else) added it to 'scare' the Jews into proper observation of the Sabbath. That's only a theory, but it is a logical assumption. And now, you might say, how do you know what part of the OT is the word of God and what is man-made? Well, the same way as ever: Using your mind. I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me. And so it is for me. I'm sure most Christians would not agree, but there you go.
It's usually the same old arguments thrown around in these topics. I'm glad to see couple fresh arguments I haven't seen before. Though I'm a bit disappointed no real evidence is shown one way or other, which have been the norm for couple thousand years now, so I'm not surprised.
I'm with you on this. Only that my mind tells me it's all man-made. I accept things if they ring true to me, until I'm shown to be in false belief, when I just change my mind for better. It's not a shame to be incorrect, it's a shame be stubborn and incorrect.
And now, you might say, how do you know what part of the OT is the word of God and what is man-made? Well, the same way as ever: Using your mind. I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me.
I'm with you on this. Only that my mind tells me it's all man-made. I accept things if they ring true to me, until I'm shown to be in false belief, when I just change my mind for better. It's not a shame to be incorrect, it's a shame be stubborn and incorrect.
Irrelevant. The O.T. is history, not Christian doctrine.
How do you draw that conclusion?
We're talking in circles here.
Agreed, and it's rather frustrating. I guess we just don't read the bible in the same way, anything that I see as a contradiction you will always find a way to explain, you see crystal clarity where I see a mud of confusion and contradiction. Invoking 'context' doesn't nullify the contradiction or make it any clearer for me, in fact it just serves to demonstrate just how convoluted these texts really are. In fact if we look at the 'larger' context, that these books were written by scores of authors over thousands of years (~2000 years ago), copied and recopied, translated and re-translated, then it does make sense to me. Contradictions and inaccuracies are inevitable! One shouldn't try and 'explain' the contradictions, just accept that it's penned by humans and as such deserves the same kind of scrutiny that any other text written by humans would.
I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me. And so it is for me. I'm sure most Christians would not agree, but there you go.
This reminds me of:
[font="Arial"]
[/font]
[color="#333333"][font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"]Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it.[/font]
[font="Arial"]
[font="Arial"] [/font]
[font="Arial"]And it seems that you, mikeman, are not the only christian who feels this way:[/font]
[font="Arial"] [/font]
[font="Arial"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14257755[/font]
However, the NT is full of these things as well. The two endings of Mark.
t is very possible that the vast compilation of books that is the OT was edited and re-edited hundreds of times, with passages edited, deleted or even added by,say, the Sanhedrin. In this case, what is described here is possible that never happened: The Sanhedrin(or whoever else) added it to 'scare' the Jews into proper observation of the Sabbath. That's only a theory, but it is a logical assumption. And now, you might say, how do you know what part of the OT is the word of God and what is man-made? Well, the same way as ever: Using your mind. I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me. And so it is for me. I'm sure most Christians would not agree, but there you go.
Mark 16:1 ~ 8 has the women of Jesus coming down to clean Jesus's body. They are told about Jesus's resurrection, which prompts them to flee and tell no one. There are several additional endings to Mark, but finally someone added Mark 9 ~ 20 at some point, where Jesus comes back later, finds the women and explains the passion to them
Anyways, the gospels all are pretty uniform until a point. By their own accounts, when Jesus was captured, everyone fled. The big question is, who was there to record what happened afterwards? The fact that only Jesus, the Jews and the Romans were there for a lot of this gives each writer a lot of wiggle room, since none of those parties are talking.(Well, maybe Jesus). It seems to me that the only likely conclusion is that after Jesus's betrayal by Judas, each writer inserted his or her own spin on the story and filled in things that they could not have known in a way to support their own conclusions about Jesus. The whole of the story is suspect and the fact that Christians try to present the Easter story as one full consistent story is verging on falsehood, since the gospels are inconstant to the point where creating one story that agrees with them all is not possible. The ending of Mark has none of Jesus's followers believing in the resurrection until after He goes back and visits them. And He has to keep coming back, because no one believes it. It's completely different from the 100 foot angels and Jesus so tall you can't see his head greeting everyone and no one seems afraid at all about towering godly figures in Jon.
[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1312026001' post='4842491']
You responded with people having their lives ruined for being correct.
I haven't had time to read every single entry listed in those links, but AFAICT they're talking about scientists being, at best, ridiculed, not having their lives ruined. Moreover, in all these cases, the scientific community at large did realign their beliefs, once the evidence was presented.
Maybe I weigh being fired an unable to find a decent job for years a little higher on the, "how fucked your life is," list.[/quote]Fair enough, though I don't think this is an issue of the scientific method. I'm still curious to know by what mechanism does religion accept new views - that things once thought to be not true, are now accepted as true?
Science shouldn't have accepted the neo-darwinist view of evolution in the first place purely based off of scientific evidence, as there are plenty of experiments with evidence counter to what should happen.[/quote]What about evolution are you arguing against here, specifically? What experiments are you referring to?
I do think that religious belief is misguided (i.e., not supported by any evidence) and irrational. I also think we shouldn't uphold religious belief, faith and so on as being good things, or things that should be respected, just as we wouldn't for any other kinds of irrational belief.[/quote]
Why is it irrational? I find my belief to be logically consistent. Not to say some people's religious beliefs are not irrational, but certainly not all of us. There is an important difference between not having share-able evidence for something and being irrational.[/quote]I do not see evidence for the claims. The claims tend to be cases which have either been disproved, or are unfalsifiable.
What is this evidence that can't be shared? Oh of course, you can't share it - couldn't anyone claim this about any belief they held, no matter how irrational it seemed?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
