The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by bluegospel He indeed brought a new covenant, essentially amending the first.

Which is irrelevant to the question of Abraham, so stop shucking and jiving and evading. How many centuries INTO THE FUTURE was Jesus from Abraham, and did they (Jesus and Abraham) operate under different covenants of God?

Your problem will be simple: During the intervening centuries, the Jews didn't operate under an "amended" covenant with Jesus, but under the one Abraham had to work with.

I admire faith. I abhor dishonesty. Dishonest answers, such as yours (evasion cannot be honest), are not the work of faith.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The point is, if we are strong, we are made stronger through our trials.

Which implies that the god is not omnipotent/omniscient and god's plan is to kill the weak - since if people are weak, they may not survive the "test", plus for a god there were no reason to make people that need "refinment".. Incompatible with "just" god or god that is "love".

Seriously, you've been in this thread for several months, so at this point you'll have to either finally come up with decent argument or admit complete incompetence.

Originally Posted by bluegospel "Test" is sometimes used to refer to refinement, usually when talking about silver. That's the sense in which I'm using it. See the eleventh definition from the top here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/test The point is, if we are strong, we are made stronger through our trials.

So what you're referring to is this: http://www.ishor.com/TestGold.php

A brief description of how fire assay works: The sample of gold is weighed very precisely and the amount is recorded. The sample is wrapped in assay lead foil along with a quantity of pure silver. This wrapped ball is placed in the furnace in a cupel (a special kind of disposable crucible). All the non-precious metals are absorbed by the hot cupel. The precious metal forms a button within the cupel. The cupel is removed from the furnace, from the cupel and then brushed to remove any lingering bits of cupel. It is hammered flat, rolled thin and then heated in a porcelain crucible containing a weak nitric acid solution. The acid removes the silver, which is poured off and the silver recovered from solution. The gold is then rinsed in distilled water to remove any residual acid and then dried. The sample of gold is now at least 99.999 pure. The sample is then weighed again. The original weight of the impure sample is divided into the weight of the now pure sample. The result is the assay.

And, if you're paying attention as you're reading along, you'll notice that what this process tells us is the original purity of the sample, which presumably is a small piece of a larger supply that is being verified. In other words, your allegedly different definition of "test" is not at all different.

When the entire supply is being subjected to this process, it's no longer a testing process, it's a refinement process. Those are different words for a reason. Yet everyone always talks about God "testing," never "refining."

Originally Posted by moxieman99 But he already knowswhether we have the mettle, and therefore knows the outcome of the tests. Aren't you trying to say that God is trying to reveal us to ourselves? That we are children of faith and trust in God (which is where Adam and Eve failed, they didn't trust in God's dictates at face value and follow them, forget "knowledge of good and evil" and all that rot, the question being; "Did they have faith")? Then say so. If God wants us to prove ourselves worthy of Him to ourselves, then it sounds very much like God is a construct of us that we created to keep ourselves in line. Or, that He is being sadistic, given that failing the test is eternal damnation (70 mothers-in-law, and not a virgin in sight?) without telling us that it is a test FOR ourselves, and not OF ourselves? Then we have the question of why God would be concerned with what we think anyway, ESPECIALLY of ourselves.

Regardless of any "knowledge of good and evil," God clearly specified the consequence of their trespass, beforehand. Yet, they trespassed. So, yes, it is dually a matter of trusting God's warning, but also of their testing God (sic)--they didn't trust him enough to obey, and they were audacious enough to test whether what he said is true, the latter of which being the point where most posters here also fail.

As for his testing us, it's for our own good, to strengthen us by perseverence, but also to shame our common enemy (in common with God). We learn from Job that God allows good people to suffer in order to put Satan to shame, whom God allows to afflict us, in order to humiliate him.

Originally Posted by bluegospel ...they were audacious enough to test whether what he said is true, the latter of which being the point where most posters here also fail.

I rather think of it as succeeding. If your God, as you have described him, existed I would be morally compelled to oppose him.

As for his testing us, it's for our own good, to strengthen us by perseverence, but also to shame our common enemy (in common with God). We learn from Job that God allows good people to suffer in order to put Satan to shame, whom God allows to afflict us, in order to humiliate him.

Yup, your god is evil.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 Which is irrelevant to the question of Abraham, so stop shucking and jiving and evading. How many centuries INTO THE FUTURE was Jesus from Abraham,

To be honest I doubted that you were serious in asking this question. About 2 millenia.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 and did they (Jesus and Abraham) operate under different covenants of God?

Jesus is the author & mediator to us, of the new covenant. At once the covenant under Christ is new, and a revision of the first. Consider the US Constitution--over the years it has served as a singular article, yet every amendment essentially gives us new & vital definition. The New testament covenant is the original covenant, but it is as different and improved as will be the new earth when Christ returns. The first covenent was impossible to keep from a human standpoint. It's point was to show us just that. Christ amended the Old in order that God would fulfill the requirements of the Old in us, through him.

The covenant God made with Abraham primarily promised Christ: "I will return . . . and Sarah will have a son. . . and through your descendants all nations on the earth will be blessed."

The promise is stated in the garden (and many other places) to the Serpent, "[Eve's seed] will strike your head, and you will strike his heel." (telling of Christ's defeating the enemy of God's people through Christ's death).

So there is one covenant, which was made new through Christ.

Please, be honest, I have answered your question.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Which implies that the god is not omnipotent/omniscient

Please tell me, you who are wise, how our being made stronger through trials implies either God's not being omnipotent or not being omniscient.

Originally Posted by SigTerm and god's plan is to kill the weak - since if people are weak, they may not survive the "test", plus for a god there were no reason to make people that need "refinment".. Incompatible with "just" god or god that is "love".

Actually, one can only be made truly strong, having been weak.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Seriously, you've been in this thread for several months, so at this point you'll have to either finally come up with decent argument or admit complete incompetence.

Please tell me you're a teenager.

Originally Posted by SL00b So what you're referring to is this: http://www.ishor.com/TestGold.php And, if you're paying attention as you're reading along, you'll notice that what this process tells us is the original purity of the sample, which presumably is a small piece of a larger supply that is being verified. In other words, your allegedly different definition of "test" is not at all different. When the entire supply is being subjected to this process, it's no longer a testing process, it's a refinement process. Those are different words for a reason. Yet everyone always talks about God "testing," never "refining."

What's the difference? If the whole population is subject to the same test, it's refined. In fact, this screams of the signature of God, who is willing to go to great lengths to refine the whole lot of us by means that we would expect to be expended only for the few.

Yet, if even the sample had a mind of its own, and resisted the process, wouldn't it be tossed, or at best be used for ignoble purposes? The point is, God's purpose prevails in us when we trust him despite suffering, as we are strengthened in character by perseverance. Cocking an attitude against God for our trials makes us an enemy to ourselves.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Please tell me you're a teenager.

I could ask you to do the same thing, but you already posted your age in another thread.
Prolonged failure to produce decent argument in defense of christianity indicates that you're (most likely) incapable of doing that.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Please tell me, you who are wise, how our being made stronger through trials implies either God's not being omnipotent or not being omniscient.

Because for omnipotent being there will be no reason to put people through trials since it has power to make them perfect from the beginning.
Omniscient being does not need trials since it can KNOW which is "stronger" or weaker.
A need for trials that will make people stronger indicates a lack of foresight in original "human blueprint", which is not a trait of omniscient/omnipotent being.
And the fact that "god" would put people through trials AND some people will be hurt or die indicates lack of love or justice - it is tyrant's/dictator's behavior. You don't allow loved ones to be hurt and letting weak people die or be hurt is not a "just" thing. A loving/just deity would resort to omniscience and would attempt to find perfect solution where no harm is inflicted upon anybody. And a failure to find such perfect solution indicates lack of omnipotence or omniscience.

It means that creator of this world (if exists) cannot love humanity AND be omnipotent, omniscient and just at same time. You'll have to drop "omnipotence", "omniscience" or "justice + love". Bible, however, insists that god possesses all those qualities, which does not match the real world evidence. The obvious conclusion is that information in bible is incorrect. Which means that bible lies and christian god does not exist. However, some other god may exist - evil, insane or uncaring, for example.

I'm done here.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Where in bible does it say that god DOESN'T use that ability? Where does it say that god can deactivate such ability? Where does it say that god never used that ability? Keep in mind, that you'll need to use ability just once to know future for entire humankind.

Are you serious???...
Then you seem to know pretty much about something in which you don't even believe.

But we believers, who've studied the matter a bit deeper than that, assume that "omnipotence" of God by definition includes his being in control of his own powers. How can he create and control the Universe, if he can't control himself???

Even in humans, who're believed to have been created after God's image, we see this ability to control the usage of their abilities. A strong power-lifter, for example, is still free to decide whether or not to lift this or that heavy object. A singer decides where and when he'll display his ability to good singing.
Just stop for a moment and think, what kind of nightmare would YOUR life turn into if YOU could not control your abilities to hear, see, think, etc. It is rather natural than otherwise to be in control of your own powers, a reasonable one would admit.
So if imperfect sinful humans with limited abilities still can do this, why can't their OMNIPOTENT Maker?
And the same Maker in his inspired Word encourages us to be in possession of our "spirit" and nature (Proverbs 15:32, 25:28).

It is your logic, therefore, that needs correction before we could continue any further.

Originally Posted by kostya But we believers, who've studied the matter a bit deeper than that, assume that "omnipotence" of God by definition includes his being in control of his own powers. How can he create and control the Universe, if he can't control himself???

Your definition of god is self-contradicting. I already pointed out plenty of problems, and see no reason to do it again.

Originally Posted by kostya Just stop for a moment and think, what kind of nightmare would YOUR life turn into if YOU could not control your abilities to hear, see, think, etc.

You already cannot control them. The only way to disable any ability you mentioned is to damage or destroy corresponding organ - otherwise they'll be enabled for your entire lifetime, whether you want it or not. You have no ability to shutdown them. And yes, it includes thinking, since it is uncommon to get a thought and be unable to get rid of it or be unable to forget about something. Read about post-traumatic stress disorder, or ry not to think about something for a hour.

Originally Posted by kostya And the same Maker in his inspired Word encourages us to be in possession of our "spirit" and nature (Proverbs 15:32, 25:28).

You're running away from the problem of omnipotence and problem of evil. Even if you manage to divert attention from those problems, they will remain. The god from the bible could exist only if it is powerless, OR it is not omniscient, OR it is not just, OR it hates humans and lies to them OR it does not care. Bible states opposite. Conclusion: bible lies and you refuse to see the problem. It is supposed to be in god's power to do anything, so I don't see why wouldn't it undo damage of any war and at least bring back the dead. Surely resurrecting few dozens of millions of war casualities wouldn't be a problem AND there would be plenty of grateful people.

Another problem is that many people claim that bible doesn't promise "immortal soul" and doesn't promise "heaven". In this case your religion has literally nothing to offer.

Originally Posted by kostya It is your logic, therefore, that needs correction before we could continue any further.

I see no reason to continue, since you can't even consider christianity being false, and refuse to think about multiple problems that were shown to you by many other people.

Perhaps these believers should look at the holey bible from a more logical point of view, Lets look at the timeline from Noah to date shall we ... from 8 sets of people chosen to repopulate the world we now have close to 7 BILLION now? Along with the multitude of different species of animals from 2 of each ? The questions I have concern the size of the ark and just exactly how long ago was this catastrophe. Next is the fact that in the old testament every time you turn around there is another instance where god is vengeful and suddenly in the new testament he/she/it is becoming a loving and beneficial being. Boy talk about a poor product of fiction even my Cockapoo could produce work better than this! BTW the stories in this book (a term I use loosely for that collection of crud that people actually try to push as the truth) were taken from old legends probably caused by such things as lightning strikes or earthquakes etc. I bet by today's reasoning every one of the stories told could be explained simply and completely. Another thing that I am curious about is where are ANY of the artifacts claimed to be sent down by god to prove his existence the tablets to moses, the ark, the gold leaflets given to joseph smith, and so forth. I'm one that firmly believes that the "good book" is just a collection of fairy tales put forth by a corrupt bunch of charlatans out to steal from the masses just like the catholic church has done for millennia ad nausium! Before you go on about why the bible is real GIVE ABSOLUTE PROOF of a god NOT just empty claims and don't quote the verses from within it THAT IS NOT PROOF of any kind not even the books credibility !

And the same Maker in his inspired Word encourages us to be in possession of our "spirit" and nature (Proverbs 15:32, 25:28).

Quoting nonsense passages from the bible or any religious book other does not justify anything.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The covenant God made with Abraham primarily promised Christ: "I will return . . . and Sarah will have a son. . . and through your descendants all nations on the earth will be blessed." The promise is stated in the garden (and many other places) to the Serpent, "[Eve's seed] will strike your head, and you will strike his heel." (telling of Christ's defeating the enemy of God's people through Christ's death). So there is one covenant, which was made new through Christ. Please, be honest, I have answered your question.

Which has nothing to do with Christ, two thousand years later, being the sacrifice in lieu of Isaac. By your own terms, the jews operated under one covenant for two thousand years, and after that two thousand years, the old covenant was amended through the crucified Christ. Sorry, son, but those dots don't connect. Two thousand years is simply too long a time to say that Jesus had anything to do with Isaac.

Personally, I don't try to either prove that religion is false, or convince those who believe in it to something otherwise. My take is fairly simple.

I was a firm believer in my religion, and did everything that was expected of me with all my heart., Then after struggling with mental illness for nearly 7 years, somewhere down the line the question of heaven or hell simply lost its relevance. It wasn't at all a logical or scientific decision on my part. It didn't work for me, so I gave it up. Simple as that. Shall I be tormented in hell for all eternity? I doubt it. I'm there now. I hope there'll be a DSL line there as well.