Atheist False God

[Ed Normile]

I am too tired to dig into the Bible right now and I am not one with the memory to quote passages, butI do remember several times that Jesus revealed his divinity, one where he asked Peter who do you say I am, and Peter replied that you are God and he said something ike this has been revealed to you. Now I know that quote is way off but you can get the gist from my feeble attempt to quote it.

Better still, why do you not post your proof that you alluded to in your first post?

ed

[sixpence]

[quote name='dw24' timestamp='1283855319' post='2169097']
Most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief,

[/quote]

Most of the people who do not believe in God are "doing blind belief"

[Winchester]

Step 1: Ridiculous assumptions.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit!

[OraProMe]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1283862955' post='2169119']
but you're wrong.


[/quote]
haha.

It's kind of an interesting way of interpreting the quotes you've got there. Christ says something but he was really just playing a little word game, so he actually meant the exact opposite of what was written. Does this apply to all scripture or only the parts where it's convenient?

Thou shalt not commit adultery LOL JKS go for your life, perhaps?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='dw24' timestamp='1283855319' post='2169097']
Most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief, the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly most people too does not and should not believe in such false gods
[/quote]

"-What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

-A simple 'wrong' would have been sufficient."

Sorry. I love that quote and the way you typed in your first post reminded me of it. Throughout this thread (and especially your first two points), you seem to have a tone of preaching (which I found ironic). Your posts do not seem to be open for dialogue but rather you are posting something because you have an axe to grind. Perhaps I have misread you and you are coming with an open mind or intended to be ironic. If this is the case, I apologize, but in your reading the Bible, you make the same mistakes many modern protestants do. You forget that the Bible was written in a context, that it was written within a Tradition. The Bible was codified in councils such as the Synod of Hippo in 393 and Council of Carthage in 397, but by then the canon was well ingrained in the Church because of its use in the liturgy (which was actually one of the requirements for whether a book could be judged as Scripture). Yes, early Christians had trouble resolving how Christ could be both God and man, as they maintained, but the fact that they refused to give either up says something. (It would be wise to read some of the Church Fathers for this. A good piece would be Athanasius's On the Incarnation in which he discusses how Christ could be both God and man. He also mentions the Shepherd of Hermas which was a book some people offered as possibly Scriptural though I don't think Athanasius thought it was. Reading the Church Fathers will help with a context and help one to understand the Biblical Tradition.) One must remember the Bible grew organically in and was codified by this Tradition as well as influenced this Traditions development since they were constantly reading it. All the Fathers read Paul and quoted his terminology. It is this context that one should remember and keep in mind when reading a book around 2000 yrs old. What am I bringing to it? How am I different from the author who wrote it? How are we the same? and What I are the specific biases I have that influence I want to get out of these readings? How would these biases prevent a frank and open dialogue with the whole of these texts and instead foster picking and choosing passages as well as foster ignoring the context of the passages as well as the context of the book? These are all important questions when reading any book and especially the Bible since it has influenced Western Society so much. No document is self interpreting and it is foolishness to think one can just walk up to a Book like the Bible and assume that it can be read it cover to cover and everything it intends to convey is there to be understood. Not even Luther thought this. He even put out his own book of Hermeneutics on how to read the Bible. One must remember that it is the whole of Scripture that fostered the idea that Christ was God and man. Only man should repay the debt of sin. Only God can truly heal Creation and has the power to pay the debt since we are broken. This is the paradox that the early Christians are trying to deal with and they do. One must account for the solution and the tension when reading the Bible, since such a solution and tension is the context of the human authors of the Bible.

Other than that, Welcome to Phatmass. I look forward to good conversations with you.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam