My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[chimp3]

Your god is most certainly man made. Evidence : There is no knowledge in the bible attributed to god that a bronze aged man could not have known or imagined. What is amusing is that otherwise intelligent people are repeating this magician in the sky nonsense as if it holds up under minimal scrutiny. Cure for tuberculosis? Birds blood spread by the flapping wings of a live bird. Cures for other diseases? Incantations and gesticulations. Get real!

What are you talking about? With the cure thing. I've never heard of that other than in witchcraft, which God forbids. And if a bronze age mad could imagine a god like the one the Bible speaks of, then why did they have so many of them? And how did they think they making an image out of stone and wood could accurately portray Him, when He specifically says they cannot, and forbids doing it? If the biblical concept of God were so easy to see and imagine, why didn't everyone just worship one individual invisible spiritual being who created everything? That concept is quite contrary to the ideas of the old gods they made up. At least they knew that there had to have been some sort of god or multiple gods who made everything, but their concept of who this god or these gods were was quite inferior to how the Bible reveals God. Of course there were those who did believe in and know the real God, but that's because He revealed Himself to them. But those who didn't know Him had a really  hard time believing in one individual God who could do everything God did, and be like Him. And that's still true today as well. God, the way He actually is, is impossible to imagine without information being given to us about Him. And even with the information we do have of Him, we still don't know Him fully as He is. Like Paul said, We see through a glass darkly at this point.

Leviticus 14: (I was wrong. It is a cure for leprosy, not tuberculosis)

48And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it, and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered: then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed. 49And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 50And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: 51And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times: 52And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet: 53But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.

54This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, 55And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house, 56And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot: 57To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy.


Me: I guess your god forbids witchcraft, huh? Read your own Bible. Atheists are.

If god(Yahweh) knew more than the people who created it , it would have known that most people have immunity to leprosy, leprosy is not easily contagious, and that simple handwashing and boiling water before drinking is a simple way to prevent most diseases. Instead, incantations and animal sacrifices.

[Joods]

---

(And I wouldn't bow down to you, Joods, even if you could prove that you were a god. There are many gods to whom there is no need to bow down, and all of them are inferior to the real God.)

And yet here you are, acting like your god is superior. You don't know with 100% certainty that you picked the right god. You could be entirely wrong - having spent your entire life worshiping the wrong god. 

Don't expect anyone here to believe your brand of woo if you aren't willing to entertain other brands of woo.

[Nay_Sayer]

---

(And I wouldn't bow down to you, Joods, even if you could prove that you were a god. There are many gods to whom there is no need to bow down, and all of them are inferior to the real God.)

And yet here you are, acting like your god is superior. You don't know with 100% certainty that you picked the right god. You could be entirely wrong - having spent your entire life worshiping the wrong god. 

Don't expect anyone here to believe your brand of woo if you aren't willing to entertain other brands of woo.

100% right. I say this having picked the actual right god.

RAmen

[Dan Brooks]

Weird because cleansing with blood makes about as much sense as cleansing with any other toxic material.

It's symbolic of spiritual cleansing. When we sin, our literal blood becomes corrupted. That's why we all die. Even if someone never gets sick or died in an accident or anything, if they live to be over 100 years old and are still healthy, they will still die. We are born with a sin nature (meaning that at some point, we will sin, it is inevitable), and we are spiritually dead. And once we actually commit a sin, our sin causes us to die physically (eventually.) And if those sins are not remitted, then we will be judged for them and punished for them. 
It takes sinless blood to cleanse us spiritually, since sin is the problem in the first place. So it's a spiritual cleansing, not a physical cleansing. 
Like I said before, all those blood sacrifices were looking forward to what the Messiah would do later on. 
(And I didn't bring this topic up, by the way.)

---

---

And yet here you are, acting like your god is superior. You don't know with 100% certainty that you picked the right god. You could be entirely wrong - having spent your entire life worshiping the wrong god. 

Don't expect anyone here to believe your brand of woo if you aren't willing to entertain other brands of woo.

100% right. I say this having picked the actual right god.

RAmen

I didn't pick the right God. The right God picked me.

John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

---

The blood has to be sinless in order to cover for sins, which is why the Messiah had to shed His blood and die on the cross.

Your alleged "Messiah" was far from sinless.  In the Gospels he does a great number of despicable things -- Verbally abused a foreign woman, talked back to his mother (clear violation of a commandment there), destroyed a farmer's herd of pigs, assassinated a fig tree, told his disciples to commit Grand Theft Ass and Colt so that he could ride into Jerusalem in style, and told an occasional lie (again, a commandment violation).

Just a narcissistic little brat whose ignominious death at the hands of the Romans was romanticized and mythologized by cultists.

Wow. And people think Christians are brainwashed. Man.

---

Don't scientists read? Scientists don't just walk outside and look up in the sky and say, "Wow, look at that." and now they're a scientist. Sure they study things in labs, and in the earth itself, etc. But they also read their scientific books. They also have to learn complicated math in certain sciences. So of course if someone is going to delve into a certain discipline, or to learn about a certain thing, part of that learning is going to include reading. 
It wouldn't make sense for someone who wants to about God not to read the Bible, which tells us who He is and how He is. If you want to learn about God, and there's a book about God, it would make sense to read it. Not that's the information about God. Everything shows us something about God, but even with all the evidence in nature, it still wouldn't make sense not to read about Him in the Bible. 
So no, God is not only found in the Bible, but He certainly is found in it. 

Scientists don't read books based on authority: they read about what observations have already been made, what experiments have already been done, and the conclusions that other scientists have arrived at.  They then decide whether their OWN observations confirm what those others have done, and if not, they will supplant old theories with new ones.

If God is alive, then you should have some experience of God.  If your only source of knowledge about God is the ancient writings of desert-dwelling Hebrews, then God whether He exists or not is of so little import in our lives that for all practical purposes, he cannot be said to exist.

In short-- if God is real, demonstrate that He matters except as a word to fight about or to pass the money tray about.  Show me this generation's Moses or Abraham, or explain to me why God was so active 3000 years ago but seems so suspiciously like a fairy tale today.

I do have experience with God. He isn't just words on paper to me. And He isn't just some impersonal ethereal being beyond the universe that I don't know from Adam. He has spoken to me many times spiritually. And I mean very specific things, not just a feeling or something. He has confirmed and proven Himself to me. I know that sounds crazy to a lot of people, people to whom that hasn't happened yet. But He can and does do that. And He also confirms His word to be true. I know that isn't everyone's experience, and I'm no better than anyone else. I'm no better than a worm in my opinion. I don't deserve to know God, but I do.

---

That wasn't how they were healed from their leprosy. That was done of the day of their cleansing. The sprinkling of blood was symbolic of cleansing, and not only in that instance, but in general, because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul, because the life is in the blood. This was all symbolic of what the Messiah would do later in history. The blood has to be sinless in order to cover for sins, which is why the Messiah had to shed His blood and die on the cross. 
That's what the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were symbolizing. That's why they were instituted.  
Leviticus 13 talks about all the ways to determine if the leprosy was healed or not,and whether the person was clean or not. And 14 instituted the ceremony that was to be done on the day that he was pronounced clean. That's all it is. It wasn't some sort of witch's brew or something. Those kinds of things were done too, but God forbid them to be done.

Why isn't this treatment for leprosy still used today? 

If all were sinners, how do you have sinless blood?

I don't have sinless blood. Jesus does. It's a spiritual cleansing that takes place when we believe on Him and what He did, and that He did it for us personally. We receive Him as our Lord, and our Savior, and He receives us as His children. I know it sounds foolish and ridiculous to people who don't believe it.  But once you do believe it, it's amazing what happens.  The peace you have, the assurance you have, the joy you have. It's pretty much impossible to explain to someone who doesn't believe it.

[Whateverist]

Weird because cleansing with blood makes about as much sense as cleansing with any other toxic material.

It's symbolic of spiritual cleansing.

See, that is how you should read the bible, as literature.  How do you decide when to read it this way and when to start taking everything literally, as you go on to do here:

When we sin, our literal blood becomes corrupted. That's why we all die.

Now you're using the bible as an empirical reference - why?  How do you decide the blood is figurative in the context of cleansing but actually and factually contaminated by sin causing our bodies to die when we would otherwise live forever?

Even if someone never gets sick or died in an accident or anything, if they live to be over 100 years old and are still healthy, they will still die. We are born with a sin nature (meaning that at some point, we will sin, it is inevitable), and we are spiritually dead. And once we actually commit a sin, our sin causes us to die physically (eventually.) And if those sins are not remitted, then we will be judged for them and punished for them.

.. assuming you were correct in your initial guess that the bible is the place to discover stuff about the god you assume exists.  From where I stand it would seem I have no more reason to think the bible is the place for important information to avoid supernatural dangers than I have to believe that stepping on a crack will break my mother's back.  There just isn't anything compelling about warnings regarding the supernatural, a place from all accounts which is completely apart from the real world.  I'll take my chances.

[Dan Brooks]

Don't scientists read? Scientists don't just walk outside and look up in the sky and say, "Wow, look at that." and now they're a scientist. Sure they study things in labs, and in the earth itself, etc. But they also read their scientific books. They also have to learn complicated math in certain sciences. So of course if someone is going to delve into a certain discipline, or to learn about a certain thing, part of that learning is going to include reading. 
It wouldn't make sense for someone who wants to ['know"?]* about God not to read the Bible, which tells us who He is and how He is. If you want to learn about God, and there's a book about God, it would make sense to read it. Not that's the information about God. Everything shows us something about God, but even with all the evidence in nature, it still wouldn't make sense not to read about Him in the Bible.

Big difference between the place of literature in science and in theology.  Indeed scientists do get a running jump on progressing empirical understanding by reading about the work of prior investigators.  This is how they "stand on the shoulders of giants" to see even further, as the saying goes.  But the HUGE difference is that none of the books of any of those scientific giants is sacrosanct.   Everything any of them ever concluded is open to revision.  With Christianity, it all rests on the bible.  If you don't start out assuming it is the inspired word of God you are finished before you start.  For you the bible IS sacrosanct.  Anything any theologian in the Christian tradition may have to say about anything has to be squared with what the bible says.  You say there is a God who is responsible for the creation of everything, but the only evidence you will accept is this book you think is so special.  The question you need to answer is "how do you know the bible is indeed the revealed word of God?"  

If you can't and answer that question, then theology can never self correct.  You are stuck with bronze age mindset but you are convinced you are better off for it.  There is no parallel here between the place of the literature in the pursuit of science and its place in the Christian religion.

So no, God is not only found in the Bible, but He certainly is found in it.

This is precisely what you have not established and, no, you can't refer to the bible to show that the bible is the book in which to learn about God.

You are right, scientific books are not the same as the Bible in the way you mentioned it. While science can be updated as new discoveries are made, etc, The Bible is a standard. And yes, I would compare what a theologian says to the Bible to see if he was right or not. 
I know I'm not allowed to say that I know the Bible is the revealed word of God because it says so, and it would take hours to explain all the reasons I believe it to be so. But one reason I have other than it saying so, is the spiritual confirmation I get from God that it is true. And as I told someone else, I understand that that is hard to believe, or really impossible to believe by someone who doesn't believe in God or the supernatural. It's not like I could say, "God proves it to me." and you'll say, "Oh, ok, well then that answers that." Because you don't believe He's real. So really it's a difficult question to answer, because there's not really much I could say that would make sense or be believed. But still, that is one of the reasons I believe it. There are literary reasons, prophetic reasons, etc, but the main thing is the spiritual reasons, which is why it's hard to explain and answer.

[Ravenshire]

When we sin, our literal blood becomes corrupted. That's why we all die.

So, you can show, scientifically, that an infant's blood is somehow different, uncorrupted, since they've never sinned?!?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Lay off the iron age voodoo bullshit, kid. It'll fuck up your brain faster than crack.

[Whateverist]

You are right, scientific books are not the same as the Bible in the way you mentioned it. While science can be updated as new discoveries are made, etc, The Bible is a standard. And yes, I would compare what a theologian says to the Bible to see if he was right or not. 
I know I'm not allowed to say that I know the Bible is the revealed word of God because it says so, and it would take hours to explain all the reasons I believe it to be so. But one reason I have other than it saying so, is the spiritual confirmation I get from God that it is true. And as I told someone else, I understand that that is hard to believe, or really impossible to believe by someone who doesn't believe in God or the supernatural. It's not like I could say, "God proves it to me." and you'll say, "Oh, ok, well then that answers that." Because you don't believe He's real. So really it's a difficult question to answer, because there's not really much I could say that would make sense or be believed. But still, that is one of the reasons I believe it. There are literary reasons, prophetic reasons, etc, but the main thing is the spiritual reasons, which is why it's hard to explain and answer.

Well then, how do you propose believers and non-believers should carry on in light of the fact that neither of us can give the other a reason he would accept as valid to change what we believe?

I just need not to be proselytized to in order to help someone win a holy merit badge. I don't need you to actually lose your belief in god, but I have to tell you that anyone who just believes what they think they're supposed to believe isn't someone I'd be able to carry on a conversation with for long. My goal for believers is that they think realistically about what they know and what they hope is true. If someone tells me they can no more prove that god does exist than that I can prove he doesn't but that they choose to believe any how, I can respect that. You won't like it but that would make you an agnostic theist, just as I am an agnostic atheist. You wouldn't have to actually be in any doubt that god exists -any more than I have any doubt that one might exist- but if you acknowledge that there is no reasonable way to persuade a fair listener, then you acknowledge that faith does not lie within the provence of knowledge. Your choice to believe has more to do with who you are, what else you believe and what you need to believe than it does with any evidence.

I wonder how you feel about the idea of uncoupling faith from the concept of knowledge? To me, I've always thought that someone who believes in the clear light of the absence of conclusive evidence shows more strength of character than the person who psyches themselves up to make the unqualified claim that God just does exist as certainly as the sky is blue, etc.

[Dan Brooks]

It's symbolic of spiritual cleansing.

See, that is how you should read the bible, as literature.  How do you decide when to read it this way and when to start taking everything literally, as you go on to do here:

When we sin, our literal blood becomes corrupted. That's why we all die.

Now you're using the bible as an empirical reference - why?  How do you decide the blood is figurative in the context of cleansing but actually and factually contaminated by sin causing our bodies to die when we would otherwise live forever?

Even if someone never gets sick or died in an accident or anything, if they live to be over 100 years old and are still healthy, they will still die. We are born with a sin nature (meaning that at some point, we will sin, it is inevitable), and we are spiritually dead. And once we actually commit a sin, our sin causes us to die physically (eventually.) And if those sins are not remitted, then we will be judged for them and punished for them.

.. assuming you were correct in your initial guess that the bible is the place to discover stuff about the god you assume exists.  From where I stand it would seem I have no more reason to think the bible is the place for important information to avoid supernatural dangers than I have to believe that stepping on a crack will break my mother's back.  There just isn't anything compelling about warnings regarding the supernatural, a place from all accounts which is completely apart from the real world.  I'll take my chances.

I'm not sure how to quote specific lines of text in these posts, so I'll just answer in order the best I can.
I do my best to read the Bible the way it's supposed to be read. The New Testament explains what the blood sacrifices in the Old Testament were for, and what the law is for. Everything in the Bible is about the Messiah. Although there are books of poetry, and books of prophecy, and historical accounts, etc, all of them in one way or another point to the Messiah. That's what the whole thing is about. So the New Testament tells us that the OT law says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, and then shows us that the whole point of that was to look forward to the Messiah shedding His blood. And it also says that the law (first 5 books) was a school master to bring us to Christ. Because no one can keep the law of God. It is impossible. There were many people in Jesus' day who were trying to follow God's law, and they thought they were doing a pretty good job. But Jesus explained how well they had to keep the law. He said they had to be perfect. We have to be absolutely completely sinless. And of course nobody is, so we have a problem. 
That's why we need Jesus, because He is sinless. He purposely died on the cross, taking our sins on Him, so that when He died, our sins did with Him. It is a gift God gave us. But if we refuse that gift, then we are required to pay for our own sins. They will be paid for one way or the other. 
And as far the supernatural, it's not just some far of place that has nothing to do with the physical world. It's all around us, all over the place. Even Led Zeppelin says that.
"The sky is filled with good and bad

That mortals never know." 
From The Battle of Evermore. So there's an extra-biblical reference for you.  lol.  

[vulcanlogician]

I know I'm not allowed to say that I know the Bible is the revealed word of God because it says so...

You are allowed to say it, but what does it saying so really matter? What other document is given credibility by claiming the merits of the document inside the document itself? Does a science textbook become more factual if it contains the phrase "everything in this textbook is a fact"? Or is its credibility determined otherwise...

I know you deliberately distanced yourself from that statement because it wasn't a debate you wanted to get into, but it is a weak point; that's probably why people pounce on it.