A literal answer from GOD

[barbco196]

I thought you saiou know the history of the Bible. If you did, you would know that it is very unlikely the books of the Bible were written by the disciples.

http://www.huffingto...o_b_840301.html

Referencing a poorly written article in the Huffington Post as evidence The New Testament wasn't written by Jesus' disciples isn't very convincing. I can find far more articles written by biblical scholars that would state the contrary. BTW, disciples is a term that means 'student'. It doesn't take a scholar to demonstrate that whichever disciples had a hand in writing The New Testament were in his physical presence while he taught.

[barbco196]

Are you sure you are simply not just uncomfortable with the fact that your faith is not helping you out in this instance?

I have read the book of Job, by crikey I am sick of the story. My mother told me to read it so many times as I watched relgion tear my family apart. That's not what is happening here, this is what happens when the modern world meets the old world.

Yes. I'm sure.

[XenoFish]

Referencing a poorly written article in the Huffington Post as evidence The New Testament wasn't written by Jesus' disciples isn't very convincing. I can find far more articles written by biblical scholars that would state the contrary. BTW, disciples is a term that means 'student'. It doesn't take a scholar to demonstrate that whichever disciples had a hand in writing The New Testament were in his physical presence while he taught.

Then that would be a bias opinion. I mean people wrote the book. It's littered with their own desire written into the pages.

Having God in your life is basically being in a codependent relationship with an imaginary being.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/signs-of-a-codependent-relationship

[barbco196]

The bible is a book of stories. Like historical fiction. There is no evidence that the Jesus of the bible actually existed at all. Religion does cause separation and it's evident in this tread. God to you is an emotion that you've give meaning to. And you talk to yourself but address an external entity.

http://psychcentral....sign-of-sanity/

A little bit on the God Effect.

https://aeon.co/essa...ver-and-fanatic

http://www.scientifi...hology-and-god/

Grab a high school history book. Read about the many historical figures; we also have no real evidence existed, other than what is written and passed down through spoken word. God is much more than an emotion to me. I think I explained that in a previous post.

[barbco196]

Then that would be a bias opinion. I mean people wrote the book. It's littered with their own desire written into the pages.

Having God in your life is basically being in a codependent relationship with an imaginary being.

http://www.webmd.com...nt-relationship

No, not my belief at all. Codependency is alluding to the fact that a relationship is unhealthy or dysfunctional. Definitely, not the case. God doesn't depend on me for anything. Again, imaginary to you? Certainly not me.

[XenoFish]

Grab a high school history book. Read about the many historical figures; we also have no real evidence existed, other than what is written and passed down through spoken word. God is much more than an emotion to me. I think I explained that in a previous post.

No, god is very much an emotion to you. You feel gods hand in everything in life, you see gods work in everything around you. You depend on god to take care of you and help you find a man. God is an emotional anchor in your life. Like so many others who are devout. They scream "Forgive me lord for my sins." like children crying for the love of a parent that's just not there.

If I told you that my faith in Cthulhu was fact would you believe me? That regardless of evidence I knew without a doubt that his love was real, would you believe me? If I told you that Zeus has forgiven me of my sins, would you believe me? Perhaps if I told you that Lucifer has given me great wisdom, would you believe me?

No, not my belief at all. Codependency is alluding to the fact that a relationship is unhealthy or dysfunctional. Definitely, not the case. God doesn't depend on me for anything. Again, imaginary to you? Certainly not me.

If only you could see yourself from my point of view.

[barbco196]

No, god is very much an emotion to you. You feel gods hand in everything in life, you see gods work in everything around you. You depend on god to take care of you and help you find a man. God is an emotional anchor in your life. Like so many others who are devout. They scream "Forgive me lord for my sins." like children crying for the love of a parent that's just not there.

If I told you that my faith in Cthulhu was fact would you believe me? That regardless of evidence I knew without a doubt that his love was real, would you believe me? If I told you that Zeus has forgiven me of my sins, would you believe me? Perhaps if I told you that Lucifer has given me great wisdom, would you believe me?

If only you could see yourself from my point of view.

I HAVE seen myself from your point of view. For the first 38 years of my life, I thought those very same things about people that believed in God. I've written very little about my relationship with God. Those 'emotions' you reference barely scratch the surface of what God means to me. I never said I depend on God to take care of me OR find me a man. I take care of my needs as a responsible adult. He gives me the reassurance (faith) that I will make 'right' decisions. Yes, I WOULD believe any thing you claim to be your reality. I would believe it, doesn't mean I agree with it or would make the same choice.

[barbco196]

Then that would be a bias opinion. I mean people wrote the book. It's littered with their own desire written into the pages.

Having God in your life is basically being in a codependent relationship with an imaginary being.

http://www.webmd.com...nt-relationship

Any article you choose will be biased. The author either believes in God or not, right?

[XenoFish]

I HAVE seen myself from your point of view. For the first 38 years of my life, I thought those very same things about people that believed in God. I've written very little about my relationship with God. Those 'emotions' you reference barely scratch the surface of what God means to me. I never said I depend on God to take care of me OR find me a man. I take care of my needs as a responsible adult. He gives me the reassurance (faith) that I will make 'right' decisions. Yes, I WOULD believe any thing you claim to be your reality. I would believe it, doesn't mean I agree with it or would make the same choice.

Fair enough just don't state you beliefs as being facts. Because such a statement can be easily taken out of context. They maybe fact to you, they are not fact to everyone.

[barbco196]

Fair enough just don't state you beliefs as being facts. Because such a statement can be easily taken out of context. They maybe fact to you, they are not fact to everyone.

I clarified that after I realized that every word is under strict scrutiny on here and you better say what you mean.

[+Sherapy]

Referencing a poorly written article in the Huffington Post as evidence The New Testament wasn't written by Jesus' disciples isn't very convincing. I can find far more articles written by biblical scholars that would state the contrary. BTW, disciples is a term that means 'student'. It doesn't take a scholar to demonstrate that whichever disciples had a hand in writing The New Testament were in his physical presence while he taught.

Well then if it doesn't take a scholar to demonstrate "that whichever disciples (" students") had a hand in writing the NT were in his physical presence" ( barbco) then what are you waiting for show us your evidence.

You are right a scholar's teaching can be analogous to let's see what you've got first, in other words what are you offering as "proof" and this is fine and dandy as long as what the scholar has said is not contested-- then their assertion might hold (be "accepted") ( as if / like evidence).

But, if what the scholar says is being investigated as in the case of the Historicity of Jesus, and now your claim, then evidence has to be forked over.

So what do you have in the way of evidence?

Nota been: And be careful that you are not confusing accepting Jesus as a universal soothsayer on faith ( which is probably the case )as we have very little evidence ( if any) to support the historicity of the Jesus character.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

Grab a high school history book. Read about the many historical figures; we also have no real evidence existed, other than what is written and passed down through spoken word. God is much more than an emotion to me. I think I explained that in a previous post.

Such as who?

Edited February 5, 2016 by Sherapy

[XenoFish]

I clarified that after I realized that every word is under strict scrutiny on here and you better say what you mean.

There is very little of a medium for personality to show through. So word are our only means of conveying a message. Unless the individual has present their personality well through how they use their words. Some member here can do this well. Other times it becomes an unnecessary mess. Where we battle of the definition of something that can be quite pointless.

I hope you faith finds you well. Do understand that I personally believe no one has meant you intention harm. I see religion to be a lot like music, while there are many varieties not everyone will have the same taste in music. Your faith is between you and god only (or whatever concept of god that someone holds to).

I have no real issue with matters of faith. I have problems with the horrors that people do in the name of their faith and I feel that a few religions simply need to die. It would be wish (and I think you'd agree) to not lump all non-believers into the same boat as being godless hell beast.

In my personal opinion is that God is just a means of explaining that which people didn't know or understand. Which is why so many of the old gods were based on elemental forces. I see the current god as being nothing more than a social construct, then again this is just my view. That god for the most part is just an idea.

Edited February 5, 2016 by XenoFish

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Grab a high school history book. Read about the many historical figures; we also have no real evidence existed, other than what is written and passed down through spoken word. God is much more than an emotion to me. I think I explained that in a previous post.

Now, here's where I hope you can give me some clarification on the bible. This is in your response to Xeno's post. Speaking of historical figures, I have some to notice, mostly so with the historical figures of royalties and kingdoms, that there is so much to go on, through out the years. Less so than today, granted. The thing is, because of archeology, and other such activities, we come to unearth records and such, that we find out more about them, or have it acknowledge certain historical myths about them. Example, the finding the bones of King Richard the third of England. It was reported he was hunched over or such, and finding his bones shows he actually had something that proved it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/02/04/amazing-photo-of-king-richard-iiis-tiny-curved-spine-proves-shakespeare-was-wrong/

My point is, grabbing a history book is good, but they do get revised as things are found or unearthed. We know more now, than we did just a few years after the Romanov's were murdered in Russia, that the possibility of Anastasia was with them.

Now, as you said you know the bible. Do you see it as a history book too? I'm not mocking or teasing. I know it has been revised, but is there something in there that show how and why it was revised. Not passages from it, but something in there that said that there is proof where the passages come from?

No, not my belief at all. Codependency is alluding to the fact that a relationship is unhealthy or dysfunctional. Definitely, not the case. God doesn't depend on me for anything. Again, imaginary to you? Certainly not me.

As Spock would say, 'fascination'.

What an interesting answer. Your words makes me reflect on my belief. I know remember Pres. Kennedy's words,

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/ask-not.htm

What if, God asked you for something, and you can do it, how would you do it, and would you?

I clarified that after I realized that every word is under strict scrutiny on here and you better say what you mean.

It's not like we are all face to face able to read body language. Plus, if statements are proved to be false, what happens if someone follows that and is harmed from it?

[barbco196]

Such as who?

ANY one of the historical figures in books. Unless we have their skeletal remains or dental record, how can we prove they existed, any more than someone can prove Jesus existed?

[Davros of Skaro]

There is very little of a medium for personality to show through. So word are our only means of conveying a message. Unless the individual has present their personality well through how they use their words. Some member here can do this well. Other times it becomes an unnecessary mess. Where we battle of the definition of something that can be quite pointless.

I hope you faith finds you well. Do understand that I personally believe no one has meant you intention harm. I see religion to be a lot like music, while there are many varieties not everyone will have the same taste in music. Your faith is between you and god only (or whatever concept of god that someone holds to).

I have no real issue with matters of faith. I have problems with the horrors that people do in the name of their faith and I feel that a few religions simply need to die. It would be wish (and I think you'd agree) to not lump all non-believers into the same boat as being godless hell beast.

In my personal opinion is that God is just a means of explaining that which people didn't know or understand. Which is why so many of the old gods were based on elemental forces. I see the current god as being nothing more than a social construct, then again this is just my view. That god for the most part is just an idea.

Do not take this the wrong way Xeno, but I see evolution in action with your recent posts.

[Davros of Skaro]

Referencing a poorly written article in the Huffington Post as evidence The New Testament wasn't written by Jesus' disciples isn't very convincing. I can find far more articles written by biblical scholars that would state the contrary. BTW, disciples is a term that means 'student'. It doesn't take a scholar to demonstrate that whichever disciples had a hand in writing The New Testament were in his physical presence while he taught.

I wish you did not skip my previous question...Oh well.

Would you atleast check out a full scholarly article by a Phd in ancient history? I doubt you will, but others will.

Do not pick up poisonous Snakes, or drink deadly poison because Mark 16:9-20 is a later forgery.

Here's the scholarship that supports this:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends2

[+Sherapy]

ANY one of the historical figures in books. Unless we have their skeletal remains or dental record, how can we prove they existed, any more than someone can prove Jesus existed?

Now, here's where I hope you can give me some clarification on the bible. This is in your response to Xeno's post. Speaking of historical figures, I have some to notice, mostly so with the historical figures of royalties and kingdoms, that there is so much to go on, through out the years. Less so than today, granted. The thing is, because of archeology, and other such activities, we come to unearth records and such, that we find out more about them, or have it acknowledge certain historical myths about them. Example, the finding the bones of King Richard the third of England. It was reported he was hunched over or such, and finding his bones shows he actually had something that proved it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/02/04/amazing-photo-of-king-richard-iiis-tiny-curved-spine-proves-shakespeare-was-wrong/

My point is, grabbing a history book is good, but they do get revised as things are found or unearthed. We know more now, than we did just a few years after the Romanov's were murdered in Russia, that the possibility of Anastasia was with them.

Now, as you said you know the bible. Do you see it as a history book too? I'm not mocking or teasing. I know it has been revised, but is there something in there that show how and why it was revised. Not passages from it, but something in there that said that there is proof where the passages come from?

As Spock would say, 'fascination'.

What an interesting answer. Your words makes me reflect on my belief. I know remember Pres. Kennedy's words, http://www.ushistory.org/documents/ask-not.htm [/size][/font][/color]

What if, God asked you for something, and you can do it, how would you do it, and would you?

It's not like we are all face to face able to read body language. Plus, if statements are proved to be false, what happens if someone follows that and is harmed from it?

On the last point, well said Stubbs.

The first thing I determine in anyone is their ability to think critically; I assess if they think about things, and how much (if at all) and if they don't I need to know this as I would be a damn fool to take their word for things!

If they don't think about things themselves and I don't mean rationalize things ( there is a difference ), but actually scrutinize and challenge themselves to question-- then they would not be listened to, or deemed credible to me.

This is what I teach my kids: I encourage them to ask themselves why would/ should someone just belief them if they themselves do not question or know why they assume the positions they do or why they have concluded as they have.

I know the difference between a reasoned response ( facts) and a rationalization.

To not do their own thinking is an example of gullibility which leads to exploiting others and harming them, while it may not be intentional none the less harm is harm.

On this I stand strong with you and Darvos.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Sherapy

[XenoFish]

Do not take this the wrong way Xeno, but I see evolution in action with your recent posts.

[Davros of Skaro]

To not do their own thinking is an example of gullibility which leads to exploiting others and harming them, while it may not be intentional none the less harm is harm.

On this I stand strong with you and Davros.

You do!? Then can I get that kiss now Selfie Therapy?

MMMMPPHH...

MMMPPFFHHHLLUUMMPPHFFF...

MMMWWWLAMMMPHFFF.

Edited February 5, 2016 by davros of skaro

[CrimsonKing]

I clarified that after I realized that every word is under strict scrutiny on here and you better say what you mean.

I wouldn't worry to much about it,i've often wondered since religion and spiritual beliefs are supposed to be more of a personal matter between oneself and what they believe than having to prove or disprove them to others,why all the fuss?

I don't care what anyone else has in their head about how everything came to be as long as it doesn't affect my daily life i'm not concerned with it,much less going to study it just to disprove your very own thoughts on something that can't 100% be proved or disproved...That just seems like something tricky governments try to pull lol

No offense to anyone on here for trying one way or the other,but throughout the years gone by through the centuries just think of all the great minds that were pretty much put to waste trying to prove or disprove god...

How many scientific discoveries have been left to ponder because of wasted time?...

[+Sherapy]

You do!? Then can I get that kiss now Selfie Therapy?

MMMMPPHH...

MMMPPFFHHHLLUUMMPPHFFF...

MMMWWWLAMMMPHFFF.

Yes, Darv, based on your posts and our conversations; I conclude you advocate critical thinking and for very good reason.

And, I support this! In truth, practically speaking as a parent I strongly encourage my kids to think and question, because it's the best idea and the most productive, the only thing I would add is one can be theist, or agnostic, or atheist and question and advocate thinking for oneself.

A true story to illustrate my point:

My middle son is away on football scholarship, he is attending a Christian University. He "believed" in God going in, yet had not seriously thought about it, he had the example of his dad and he saw his dad as a good man, and he would say this is why he was open to God. We always (dad I encouraged/ agreed) that he should think for himself, not just inherit his ideas( catholic) or my ideas ( atheism) on face value, just because we are his parents as so many kids do.

Maturity means one does their own thinking.

My boy called me last night and shared that being at this school is causing a lot of questions, he said I talked to my dad about it ( my ex) and I said what did your dad say, this is the guy who was an atheist turned catholic ( remember we talked about this). Dad said he absolutely should be questioning God and that he should not be worshipping anything, or following a book that was written by men, that he needs to let his questions guide him to his own conclusions and that it didn't matter the path he walked, it mattered the person he became on it.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Sherapy

[CrimsonKing]

Thats it Sher,thinking for oneself!

Not many breakthroughs for helping out humanity or scientific causes coming out of this millenia old argument these days,wouldn't you agree?

Just a quote i like...

"The perfect way is only difficult for those who pick and choose.Do not like,do not dislike;all will then be clear.Make a hairbreadth difference and heaven and earth are set apart;if you want the truth to stand clear before you,never be for or against.The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease." Bruce Lee

[XenoFish]

[+Sherapy]

Thats it Sher,thinking for oneself!

Not many breakthroughs for helping out humanity or scientific causes coming out of this millenia old argument these days,wouldn't you agree?

Just a quote i like...

"The perfect way is only difficult for those who pick and choose.Do not like,do not dislike;all will then be clear.Make a hairbreadth difference and heaven and earth are set apart;if you want the truth to stand clear before you,never be for or against.The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease." Bruce Lee

My two favourite words are "For me" or "I have found a way that works, for me", or "namaste."