Blaming The Children For The Sins of Their Parents? Is That Justice?

[dacontinent]

No need to feel ashamed because you're simply following orders. Nevermind that those orders contain sentiments of major injustices, lack of honesty. being mercilessness all for the sake of pleasing the biblical god. All those characteristics are less important.

No shame, sir. No need.

The threads posted and closed weeks ago, yes, I remember reading those, but most of them didn't cover what you claim they covered. You're conveniently using the "refer to other thread" excuse as an easy way out of actually answering the question with facts.

If this means that you did not go back and re-read my comments in those threads, then you jumped to a conclusion based on what you THINK you remember.

The verses about a dying soul are merely written down on a piece of paper. That doesn't equate to being factual. Just because someone can believe it in their mind doesn't equate to evidence either. That's why it's called a "faith" issue. Faith requires no evidence.

You must have a lot of faith. Your position is simply stored in silicon and can be wiped away faster than you can blink. I will still with FAITH in the WORD that has stood for centuries.

The descriptions I presented cover almost half the bible where the biblical god was always requiring death, destruction, stealing, genocide, rape and murder on human beings. You don't want to talk about that and I understand why. Even the "blessings" the biblical god claims to give to his people are more often at the expense of innocent peoples from other nations. You can ignore those non-redeeming characteristics but I can't. The opportunity is still there for you to realize this.

The descriptions that I presented covert the ENTIRE Bible.

 

[dacontinent]

Where does it say that David's mother sinned? LOL!! Not one time does the bible mention the name of David's mother.
Psalms 51:5. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Where in the bible does it say that David's mother had sinned when he was being born? Another concocted story of yours again and comical as well.

Just read the scripture you just posted.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

It clearly says ALL men have sinned, not just Adam. All men denotes all human beings, including newborn babies.

Unfortunately you have not studied the text very well yet.

Where in any parts of the following verse does it remotely begins to talk about an original sin from Adam? You're really reaching now.

Job 15:14 What [is] man, that he should be clean? and [he which is] born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Adam, nor an "original" sin is mentioned in that verse. It clearly says, "that which is born of a woman". Again, you're concocting and adding far out interpretations out of sheer convenience.

It is not mentioned there. It is simply understood by the writer of the oldest book in the Bible.

It's you who need to try again. Try posting verses to prove that the bible teaches that humans are NOT born in sin. Show verses like I've done.
Based on responses to those verses, your opinion and credibility are highly questionable right now.

You've made your contention and been found lacking. Enjoy yourself.

One of the significant differences between us is that you seem to post here for purposes of debating. I really don't care to debate. If people want to share opinions and information, I am good with that. Debate for strife is a waste of my time. I don't allow it at home, don't permit it at church, and I won't do it here.

 

[JayRob]

No shame, sir. No need.

If you have no shame in the fact that the biblical god ordered the deaths of babies and children, then something's seriously wrong with one's character.

If this means that you did not go back and re-read my comments in those threads, then you jumped to a conclusion based on what you THINK you remember.

My memory's fairly keen, so there's no need for me to guess. If you don't want me to guess, simply post your beliefs, unless....?

You must have a lot of faith. Your position is simply stored in silicon and can be wiped away faster than you can blink. I will still with FAITH in the WORD that has stood for centuries.

"Faith" is merely an opinion and "belief" system. It requires NO supporting evidence nor proof that what one believes is neither accurate nor truthful. All it is, is mere "faith".

The descriptions that I presented covert the ENTIRE Bible.

A flat out untruth if I ever heard it. You come nowhere near to admitting that the death, destruction, stealing, genocide, rape and murder on human beings was part of the biblical god's character. You ignore the fact that such character was seared in the psyche of the biblical god, even to the point where he craved the blood of thousands and thousands of animals being sacrificed just to soothe his anger.
You don't want to talk about that and I understand why. Even the "blessings" the biblical god claims to give to his people are more often, at the expense of innocent peoples from other nations. You can ignore such non-redeeming characteristics but I can't. The opportunity is still there for you to realize this.[/I]

It's quite telling that you're more than willing to admit the obvious as it relates to various subjects, however when it comes to admitting the outright human atrocities and murders, your willingness to admit such shrinks to almost microscopic proportions.

 

[JayRob]

Just read the scripture you just posted.

What was the sin of David's mother when he was born? You don't know. The verse says nothing about a sin directly from David's mother. Unfortunately, your rebuttals are some of the weakest rebuttals I've heard yet.

Unfortunately you have not studied the text very well yet.

If you're confident enough to throw such an accusation which says that I didn't study the text very well, please tell me what SPECIFICALLY led you to that idea.
Romans 5:12 accuses ALL men of being sinners. All denotes every man, woman, child and baby.

It is not mentioned there. It is simply understood by the writer of the oldest book in the Bible.

You're now speaking for a supposed dead man you don't even know?!
Where in any parts of the following verse does it remotely begins to talk about an original sin from Adam? You're really reaching now.

Job 15:14 says, "What [is] man, that he should be clean? and [he which is] born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"

Adam, nor an "original" sin is mentioned in that verse. It clearly says, "that which is born of a woman". Again, you're concocting and adding far out interpretations out of sheer desperation. This is sad to see, yet truly refreshing.

You've made your contention and been found lacking. Enjoy yourself.

Based on what? You don't seem to have the confidence to show what I'm lacking in. Prove that my contention is lacking.
It's you who need to try again. Try posting verses to prove that the bible teaches that humans are NOT born in sin. Show verses like I've done.

One of the significant differences between us is that you seem to post here for purposes of debating. I really don't care to debate. If people want to share opinions and information, I am good with that. Debate for strife is a waste of my time. I don't allow it at home, don't permit it at church, and I won't do it here.

I don't post just for a debate, I post for the purpose of showing that neither you nor others who believe in biblical statements simply can't back them up with evidence and truthfulness. This is why it's called a "faith" and THIS is why I post what I post. People have a right to know about the inconsistencies, untruths and uncorroborated writings in the bible. They have just as much a right to know this just as you have the right to believe untruths as long as you want to.
Most Western religions, not just Christianity, are merely beliefs in such willing vessels, supported by little to nothing.

 

[dacontinent]

What was the sin of David's mother when he was born? You don't know. The verse says nothing about a sin directly from David's mother. Unfortunately, your rebuttals are some of the weakest rebuttals I've heard yet.

The Scripture does not reveal the sin. You might have to ask Dav...nevermind.

If you're confident enough to throw such an accusation which says that I didn't study the text very well, please tell me what SPECIFICALLY led you to that idea.
Romans 5:12 accuses ALL men of being sinners. All denotes every man, woman, child and baby.
...
Based on what? You don't seem to have the confidence to show what I'm lacking in. Prove that my contention is lacking.
It's you who need to try again. Try posting verses to prove that the bible teaches that humans are NOT born in sin. Show verses like I've done.

SPECIFICALLY, it is your posts that have attacked the character of God as a child killer without understanding that those children are in heaven with Him. So, when you read Romans 5:12 you failed to understand what ALL means.

You're now speaking for a supposed dead man you don't even know?!
Where in any parts of the following verse does it remotely begins to talk about an original sin from Adam? You're really reaching now.

Job 15:14 says, "What [is] man, that he should be clean? and [he which is] born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"

Adam, nor an "original" sin is mentioned in that verse. It clearly says, "that which is born of a woman". Again, you're concocting and adding far out interpretations out of sheer desperation. This is sad to see, yet truly refreshing.

I have not personally met nor known any of the writers of the books of the Bible. The only Biblical character that I know personally is Jesus Christ.

Job is the oldest of the books in the Bible. It includes revelation on encounters between God and Satan and Job's accounting of his prayer for his children against them committing sins. Therefore, Job would have had have been aware of original sin.

 

[JayRob]

The Scripture does not reveal the sin. You might have to ask Dav...nevermind.

To believe in David, one only has to have a belief. There's no evidence that a man existed who ruled over a kingdom as described in the bible. Neither the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Philistines or surrounding nations have any recording documents about a king David as described in the bible. He only exists in the minds of those who believe.

SPECIFICALLY, it is your posts that have attacked the character of God as a child killer without understanding that those children are in heaven with Him. So, when you read Romans 5:12 you failed to understand what ALL means.

No need to attack the character of something that's not real. Even if the Old Testament god was real, he'd condemn himself by his own inspired writings describing murder, racism, genocide, slavery, massive injustices, merciless killings, etc., etc., etc.

I have not personally met nor known any of the writers of the books of the Bible.

Wow, what a revelation. LOL!!

The only Biblical character that I know personally is Jesus Christ.

Did you touch him? Did you see him? If not, you must be suffering from psychosis or schizophrenia. Folks criticize children for having imaginary friends, but give themselves a "pass" when claiming to hear and talk to an "entity" they've never seen, heard, felt or smelled.

Job is the oldest of the books in the Bible. It includes revelation on encounters between God and Satan and Job's accounting of his prayer for his children against them committing sins. Therefore, Job would have had have been aware of original sin.

Job is no more real than the rest of the writers you claim to have never met. Until he can be proven via historical writings or archaeological findings, the Job character is nothing more than a figment of one's imagination. This is why the bible has to be accepted on something that means no physical evidence. It's called "faith".

 

[dacontinent]

To believe in David, one only has to have a belief. There's no evidence that a man existed who ruled over a kingdom as described in the bible. Neither the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Philistines or surrounding nations have any recording documents about a king David as described in the bible. He only exists in the minds of those who believe.

Whether you believe David existed or not, this reference points to the consistency of the Scriptures ... again.

No need to attack the character of something that's not real. Even if the Old Testament god was real, he'd condemn himself by his own inspired writings describing murder, racism, genocide, slavery, massive injustices, merciless killings, etc., etc., etc.

If there is no need, then why do you persist?

Wow, what a revelation. LOL!!

I have also never met the likes of Einstein, Darwin, Shakespeare, Hitler, Stalin, Ptolemy, Socrates, Copernicus, nor Galileo. How about you?

Did you touch him? Did you see him? If not, you must be suffering from psychosis or schizophrenia. Folks criticize children for having imaginary friends, but give themselves a "pass" when claiming to hear and talk to an "entity" they've never seen, heard, felt or smelled.

Yes, I have heard, seen, touched, and smelled Him. How about you?

Job is no more real than the rest of the writers you claim to have never met. Until he can be proven via historical writings or archaeological findings, the Job character is nothing more than a figment of one's imagination. This is why the bible has to be accepted on something that means no physical evidence. It's called "faith".

You have a problem with faith as it pertains to the Bible, but you don't seem to have a problem with faith when it comes to science. Why is that?

Anyway, Job's writings simply support the consistency of the Scriptures, whether you believe them or not.

 

[JayRob]

Whether you believe David existed or not, this reference points to the consistency of the Scriptures ... again.

Dacon, there's no consistency in the scriptures. For you to make that claim is highly inaccurate. The four gospels show no consistency whatsoever. Many verses in the Old Testament contradict each other. I would list some of them, but I think you already know them....or at least you should.

If there is no need, then why do you persist?

Why do I persist? To show how baseless and groundless various books, chapters and verses are in a book folks claim was inspired by an all-powerful, omnipotent and supernatural being no one has ever seen, felt or heard, that's why.
It's also quite refreshing to point out huge discrepancies, errors and contradictions found in a book that's supposed to be inspired by an all-knowing entity. It only proves that it was written and inspired not by a supernatural entity, but by mortal men, who oftentimes didn't know what they were talking about, especially when it came to the causes of diseases.

I have also never met the likes of Einstein, Darwin, Shakespeare, Hitler, Stalin, Ptolemy, Socrates, Copernicus, nor Galileo. How about you?

Unlike the men you claimed wrote the bible, neither of those men you listed claimed to have seen, walked with, talked to or touched an entity called god. Neither of those men claimed to have seen people raised from the dead. Neither of those men ever claimed to hear a talking donkey. Neither of those men ever made claim that the sun stopped for several hours in midstream. There's a vast difference between the men who made such claims versus the ones you just listed. There's actual evidence that the ones you listed existed once upon a time and there are pictures, historical artifacts, videos and photos to prove it. You have neither when it comes to proving the factuality of the men of the bible.

Yes, I have heard, seen, touched, and smelled Him. How about you?

With all due respect, I'd say why aren't you then treated like folks who claim that they see or hear things who are currently housed at the state hospital on the psychiatric ward? If you claim to be talking to a being you can't see or hear or touch or smell, and you claim that he talks back to you, aren't your experiences the same as a person suffering from psychosis? Whether you want to admit it or not, the answer is a resounding "yes". Your experiences are no different than the person who claims to hear voices in his head, and they're certainly no different than the child who claims to have imaginary friends who he talks to on a daily basis.

In addition to that, the bible says that no man hath seen god at any time. Either you're lying or the bible is lying or both of you are lying. Take your choice.

You have a problem with faith as it pertains to the Bible, but you don't seem to have a problem with faith when it comes to science. Why is that?

Science offers proof of claims and is far more credible in most of it's proclamations. If it's not a claim, science admits that it's only a "theory".
On the other hand, most Western religious folks claim to KNOW something is true, but offer no proof showing what they know is true. Their version of the truth is only in their mind and it's based on what? A thing called faith, which simply means " believing proof without evidence".
This is why science is light years ahead of religion in most cases.

If it wasn't for science, we'd still be thinking the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that spirits caused diseases instead of bacteria and viruses.

Anyway, Job's writings simply support the consistency of the Scriptures, whether you believe them or not.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make chapters and verses, written dozens or hundreds of years later, to jibe with previous writings.

 

[dacontinent]

Dacon, there's no consistency in the scriptures. For you to make that claim is highly inaccurate. The four gospels show no consistency whatsoever. Many verses in the Old Testament contradict each other. I would list some of them, but I think you already know them....or at least you should.

:sleeping:

Why do I persist? To show how baseless and groundless various books, chapters and verses are in a book folks claim was inspired by an all-powerful, omnipotent and supernatural being no one has ever seen, felt or heard, that's why.
It's also quite refreshing to point out huge discrepancies, errors and contradictions found in a book that's supposed to be inspired by an all-knowing entity. It only proves that it was written and inspired not by a supernatural entity, but by mortal men, who oftentimes didn't know what they were talking about, especially when it came to the causes of diseases.

We know that they understood very little about the causes of disease outside of normal health practices and some demonic influences. We have been through that in several other threads [ sigh ].

Unlike the men you claimed wrote the bible, neither of those men you listed claimed to have seen, walked with, talked to or touched an entity called god. Neither of those men claimed to have seen people raised from the dead. Neither of those men ever claimed to hear a talking donkey. Neither of those men ever made claim that the sun stopped for several hours in midstream. There's a vast difference between the men who made such claims versus the ones you just listed. There's actual evidence that the ones you listed existed once upon a time and there are pictures, historical artifacts, videos and photos to prove it. You have neither when it comes to proving the factuality of the men of the bible.

I thought you might say something like that, so I was sure to include Galileo.

Most assuredly we have plenty of history on the men of the Bible. You just choose to reject much of it.

With all due respect, I'd say why aren't you then treated like folks who claim that they see or hear things who are currently housed at the state hospital on the psychiatric ward? If you claim to be talking to a being you can't see or hear or touch or smell, and you claim that he talks back to you, aren't your experiences the same as a person suffering from psychosis? Whether you want to admit it or not, the answer is a resounding "yes". Your experiences are no different than the person who claims to hear voices in his head, and they're certainly no different than the child who claims to have imaginary friends who he talks to on a daily basis.

Having not studied psychiatry, I can't tell you whether my experiences are the same or different. I can tell you what I have experienced, offer you the opportunity to experience the same, and give you the chance to make your own decisions.

In addition to that, the bible says that no man hath seen god at any time. Either you're lying or the bible is lying or both of you are lying. Take your choice.

I choose neither. Just view Jn 1:1, Jn 1:18, and 1 Jn 4:12 and tell why they DO NOT conflict.

Science offers proof of claims and is far more credible in most of it's proclamations. If it's not a claim, science admits that it's only a "theory".
On the other hand, most Western religious folks claim to KNOW something is true, but offer no proof showing what they know is true. Their version of the truth is only in their mind and it's based on what? A thing called faith, which simply means " believing proof without evidence".
This is why science is light years ahead of religion in most cases.

If it wasn't for science, we'd still be thinking the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that spirits caused diseases instead of bacteria and viruses.

Science has taught us many great things about how absolutely awesome our God is. I am very thankful.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make chapters and verses, written dozens or hundreds of years later, to jibe with previous writings.

It might take a rocket scientist to transcend some time warp if we were referring to some book of the Bible other than the OLDEST of them.

 

[JayRob]

:sleeping:

I see you have no confidence in your own bible to produce verses. Instead, you fell asleep at the wheel.

We know that they understood very little about the causes of disease outside of normal health practices and some demonic influences. We have been through that in several other threads [ sigh ].

If they're supposed to have had a direct line of KNOWLEDGE to the all-knowing and omnipotent god of the bible, they should've known about the causes of diseases. Their god shouldn't have misled them by telling them that evil spirits were the cause of their diseases.
Turns out to be false beliefs because the Old Testament god showed himself to be just as ignorant as his prophets and disciples.

I thought you might say something like that, so I was sure to include Galileo.

So, what does that have to do with answering my question? Nothing. Unlike the bible figures, there's literature from Galileo's writings just as there are with the others you listed. In short, there's irrefutable evidence showing that the men you listed actually existed.

Most assuredly we have plenty of history on the men of the Bible. You just choose to reject much of it.

The bible has proven to harbor more fake and false history than one can shake a stick at. It's overall history can't be corroborated neither by archaeology, geology or historic documentation from credible sources. The bible is nowhere near being consistently credible.

Having not studied psychiatry, I can't tell you whether my experiences are the same or different. I can tell you what I have experienced, offer you the opportunity to experience the same, and give you the chance to make your own decisions.

Having studied subjects related to psychiatry and psychology, your symptoms of praying to an invisible being, claiming to hear an invisible being talk back to you and claiming to have seen an invisible human being, you'd be considered for mental health therapy. In short, you'd be diagnosed as being "mentally impaired".

I choose neither. Just view Jn 1:1, Jn 1:18, and 1 Jn 4:12 and tell why they DO NOT conflict.

You claimed to have seen god. The bible states that no man has seen god. Even if you've claimed to have seen the fictional Jesus character, please tell me: what was his race? What color were his eyes? How tall was he?

Science has taught us many great things about how absolutely awesome our God is. I am very thankful.

Which god are you referring to? Allah or Yahweh or Jesus or Zeus or Horus or Dionysius or one of thousands of man-made gods? Which one are you referring to and HOW can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one god YOU chose is the ONE TRUE GOD?

It might take a rocket scientist to transcend some time warp if we were referring to some book of the Bible other than the OLDEST of them.

Where was Job born? What was his last name? Who were his parents? What race was he? Now prove it with history resources other than the bible.

 

[dacontinent]

I see you have no confidence in your own bible to produce verses. Instead, you fell asleep at the wheel.

Your perspective is poor. It is your rhetoric that is putting me to sleep.

If they're supposed to have had a direct line of KNOWLEDGE to the all-knowing and omnipotent god of the bible, they should've known about the causes of diseases. Their god shouldn't have misled them by telling them that evil spirits were the cause of their diseases.
Turns out to be false beliefs because the Old Testament god showed himself to be just as ignorant as his prophets and disciples.

Already covered in previous threads. :sleeping:

So, what does that have to do with answering my question? Nothing. Unlike the bible figures, there's literature from Galileo's writings just as there are with the others you listed. In short, there's irrefutable evidence showing that the men you listed actually existed.

You did not ask a question; you made statements...

Unlike the men you claimed wrote the bible, neither of those men you listed claimed to have seen, walked with, talked to or touched an entity called god...

...and you were wrong.

The bible has proven to harbor more fake and false history than one can shake a stick at. It's overall history can't be corroborated neither by archaeology, geology or historic documentation from credible sources. The bible is nowhere near being consistently credible.

Science and archeology, geology, and historic documentation CONTINUE to support Biblical history day by day.

Having studied subjects related to psychiatry and psychology, your symptoms of praying to an invisible being, claiming to hear an invisible being talk back to you and claiming to have seen an invisible human being, you'd be considered for mental health therapy. In short, you'd be diagnosed as being "mentally impaired".

Then, please share WHY psychiatry and psychology are not resulting in such diagnoses
all over the world. Clearly, there must be some standard in those professions which precludes that happening.

You claimed to have seen god. The bible states that no man has seen god. Even if you've claimed to have seen the fictional Jesus character, please tell me: what was his race? What color were his eyes? How tall was he?

His race was human. His eyes were flaming burnt orange. His build was average; I would say around 6 ft.

Which god are you referring to? Allah or Yahweh or Jesus or Zeus or Horus or Dionysius or one of thousands of man-made gods? Which one are you referring to and HOW can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one god YOU chose is the ONE TRUE GOD?

I have only talked of one God ... ever. That God has been identified to you repeatedly. There is no need for you to clamor for ambiguity now.

Where was Job born? What was his last name? Who were his parents? What race was he? Now prove it with history resources other than the bible.

• Uz.
• Very few surnames are give in the Bible. Job's is not given.
• Not given.
• Not given.

What is your point?

 

[JayRob]

Your perspective is poor. It is your rhetoric that is putting me to sleep.

Perhaps it's your brain's cells being overloaded all at one time by too much truth-based information it can't handle.

Already covered in previous threads. :sleeping:

No, you've not discussed the fact that the biblical god made claims that evil spirits were the CAUSE of diseases. That alone should've been enough to disqualify him from being seen as an all-knowing god. He doesn't even seem to know the basics of diseases, bacteria and viruses he supposedly created.

We now know what causes diseases and it's certainly not evil spirits. They're caused by bacteria and viruses, something the biblical writers AND their god seemed to have known absolutely nothing about.

You did not ask a question; you made statements...

Whether I made a statement or not, it still doesn't negate the fact that there's ample evidence and proof of the existence of ALL the men you listed.
On the other hand, there's not a shred of evidence, outside the bible, proving that 99.9 percent of the men of the Old Testament or New Testament as having ever existed.

...and you were wrong.

Out of the names you listed, post evidence showing where either of them claimed to have seen and walked with Jesus.

Science and archeology, geology, and historic documentation CONTINUE to support Biblical history day by day.

What percentage of the bible can be proven accurate by science, archaeology, geology and historic documentation? When it comes down to it, probably less than five percent.

Then, please share WHY psychiatry and psychology are not resulting in such diagnoses
all over the world. Clearly, there must be some standard in those professions which precludes that happening.

Perhaps because the DSM IV diagnosis doesn't apply outside the United States. Whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant due to the fact that some of the very symptoms of psychosis are being mimicked by those who pray to an invisible being they can neither see, hear, feel, touch or smell. It's quite easy to prove.

His race was human. His eyes were flaming burnt orange. His build was average; I would say around 6 ft.

You can't tell what color he was, but you can tell that he had "orange eyes?! It's quite obvious you were dreaming, hallucinating or delusional at the time.

I have only talked of one God ... ever. That God has been identified to you repeatedly. There is no need for you to clamor for ambiguity now.

I actually quoted a verse from the bible, which says that NO MAN has seen god at any time, however you seem to blow that verse right out of the water by claiming that you have seen him. In short, you indirectly called the author of such a verse a liar and don't even realize it.

[*]Uz.

Is there a monument in Uz verifying that Job lived there? Where are his birth records or historical documents?

[*]Very few surnames are give in the Bible. Job's is not given.

So there could've been a hundred Job's but you don't know which one because you don't know the surname? Hmmm, interesting.

[*]Not given.

Which equates to no evidence.

[*]Not given.

Which again equates to no evidence.

What is your point?

My point is that there's not ONE shred, not even an infinitestimal crumb of evidence proving that such a person as Job ever existed. None whatsoever.

 

[dacontinent]

No, you've not discussed the fact that the biblical god made claims that evil spirits were the CAUSE of diseases. That alone should've been enough to disqualify him from being seen as an all-knowing god. He doesn't even seem to know the basics of diseases, bacteria and viruses he supposedly created.

I have discussed this REPEATEDLY in previous threads. :sleeping:

We now know what causes diseases and it's certainly not evil spirits. They're caused by bacteria and viruses, something the biblical writers AND their god seemed to have known absolutely nothing about.

Is it your contention that mental illness is caused by bacteria and viruses alone, even when we can track it across generations?

Out of the names you listed, post evidence showing where either of them claimed to have seen and walked with Jesus.

Try reading Church and Galileo by Ernan McMullin.

What percentage of the bible can be proven accurate by science, archaeology, geology and historic documentation? When it comes down to it, probably less than five percent.

Don't blink. :sleeping:

Perhaps because the DSM IV diagnosis doesn't apply outside the United States. Whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant due to the fact that some of the very symptoms of psychosis are being mimicked by those who pray to an invisible being they can neither see, hear, feel, touch or smell. It's quite easy to prove.

Okay then ... why doesn't the APA, APS, or FABBS have an establish standard declaring those who document experiences with God as I have described to you as experiencing psychosis? Yes, that is a loaded question.

You can't tell what color he was, but you can tell that he had "orange eyes?! It's quite obvious you were dreaming, hallucinating or delusional at the time.

If by color you refer to the regions of body that were uncovered and normally attributed to skin in humans, those areas were white: not Caucasion, but white. As far as your conclusions, those are best made by evaluating experiences. Perhaps you have something to share in that regard.

I actually quoted a verse from the bible, which says that NO MAN has seen god at any time, however you seem to blow that verse right out of the water by claiming that you have seen him. In short, you indirectly called the author of such a verse a liar and don't even realize it.

I gave you the verses and asked you a question which you did not address at all. This response is evidence that you don't understand the scripture that you quoted.

Whether I made a statement or not, it still doesn't negate the fact that there's ample evidence and proof of the existence of ALL the men you listed.
On the other hand, there's not a shred of evidence, outside the bible, proving that 99.9 percent of the men of the Old Testament or New Testament as having ever existed.
...
Is there a monument in Uz verifying that Job lived there? Where are his birth records or historical documents?
So there could've been a hundred Job's but you don't know which one because you don't know the surname? Hmmm, interesting.
Which equates to no evidence.
Which again equates to no evidence.
My point is that there's not ONE shred, not even an infinitestimal crumb of evidence proving that such a person as Job ever existed. None whatsoever.

Monuments to men? Plenty. I find it suprizing that you would find that as acceptable EVIDENCE. Birth records? I don't know if one could locate the birth records for half of those men.

The statement that you made was wrong. You failed the Galileo test. However, it really isn't that important.



When you are ready to get back to the subject of the thread AND you have something to bring that has not been discussed in previous threads, I will post a response. Until then ... :sleeping:

 

[JayRob]

I have discussed this REPEATEDLY in previous threads. :sleeping:

I keep asking you to show where you've discussed certain subjects, however you can't seem to find those threads.
On this particular subject, you've not offered an explanation as to why a god, who claims to "all-knowing", would make claims that evil spirits as being the cause of diseases, when in fact it's microorganisms that actually cause most diseases.
If the biblical god was all-knowing, and the creator of such organisms, why didn't he know that these organisms caused diseases? I'll tell you why. It's because the writers of the bible were mere men and their god was merely man-made. Neither them nor their made up sky god knew about bacteria and viruses as being the culprits of diseases.
This is why the bible can be debunked as being a book inspired by an "all-knowing" god. No all-knowing being would dare make the claim that evil spirits were the cause of diseases.

Is it your contention that mental illness is caused by bacteria and viruses alone, even when we can track it across generations?

What does this have to do with bacteria and viruses as being the cause of diseases?

Try reading Church and Galileo by Ernan McMullin.

Try reading how the church threatened to kill Galileo if he hadn't recanted proven science for unproven religious dogma.

Don't blink. :sleeping:

So you have no idea what percentage of the bible can actually be proven, so you ignore it? Typical.

Okay then ... why doesn't the APA, APS, or FABBS have an establish standard declaring those who document experiences with God as I have described to you as experiencing psychosis? Yes, that is a loaded question.

Because they would lose a lot of financial funding from Christian organizations and Christians themselves. They'd also be condemning themselves because many of them could be Christians.
In addition, a person having an "experience" with the god of the bible, is virtually unprovable.

If by color you refer to the regions of body that were uncovered and normally attributed to skin in humans, those areas were white: not Caucasion, but white. As far as your conclusions, those are best made by evaluating experiences. Perhaps you have something to share in that regard.

So, Jesus was White? Now I know you must have been hallucinating. There were few White people in the Middle East two thousand years ago. If most people were brown or olive-skinned during that era, why was it necessary for Judas to have to point a White Jesus out to the Pharisees in the midst of a crowd? He would've stood out like a sore thumb.

I gave you the verses and asked you a question which you did not address at all. This response is evidence that you don't understand the scripture that you quoted.

Whether I addressed the verses or not still doesn't negate the fact that your claim to seeing "god", is a biblical contradiction. Even in John 1:18, the Jesus character seems to not have considered himself to have been god, since he claims that no man has ever seen him. This is another verse that's contradictory.

Monuments to men? Plenty. I find it suprizing that you would find that as acceptable EVIDENCE. Birth records? I don't know if one could locate the birth records for half of those men.

Not a monument to "men", but a monument to Job. There's not one shred of evidence for his existence. There's no record of 99.9 percent of the prophets and apostles of the bible.

The statement that you made was wrong. You failed the Galileo test. However, it really isn't that important.

Show where I failed the Galileo test. Your word alone is not reliable enough for me to accept it at face value. Now when it comes to subjects outside of religion, perhaps I would take your word at face value.

When you are ready to get back to the subject of the thread AND you have something to bring that has not been discussed in previous threads, I will post a response. Until then ... :sleeping:

Even when the subject of the thread was being discussed, you made excuses for me to refer back to previous threads for answers because you couldn't answer the questions being asked, so what's the use of me asking the same questions again? All you'll say is "refer back to a previous thread", a thread in all likelihood that doesn't exist.
I do applaud you for trying though, unlike most.

One more thing, a question that you thought I had forgotten about, and one that you continue to try and avoid with flimsy responses: "Out of the thousands of gods men have made up over thousands of years, how can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "biblical" god is the one TRUE god?