Rational and logical observations why there can be NO god....

[JustAGuy1]

is that either or ...

for the record, not one word written by the hand of the main character of the 1st century is included in the christian bible. as in itself most assuredly is a message from them for those that are blinded by a single book.

Your opinion is your own and I accept that.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your opinion is your own and I accept that.

it's not an opinion that not one word written in the christian bible was written by the hand of the 1st century religious itinerant the c bible attempts to portray.

nor is the prescribed religion of antiquity, liberation theology or any religion at all mentioned in that book.

 

[ding]

They are all lying and there is not a shred of evidence for their claims.

24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise.

 

[emilynghiem]

is that either or ...

for the record, not one word written by the hand of the main character of the 1st century is included in the christian bible. as in itself most assuredly is a message from them for those that are blinded by a single book.

Dear BreezeWood
If you and I testify to enforce consistent standards of truth and justice,
what criteria do you use to test if what we say is consistent or not?
Isn't it based on the content of our statements?

So if the content of a spiritual statement is TRUE, then it doesn't matter if I say it, you say it, or someone who isn't Jesus says it.
And if something is FALSE, that statement is FALSE regardless of the nature of the person stating it.

Can we stick to what in the CONTENT is either true or false,
consistent or inconsistent?

The spirit and application of that content can also vary and should be discerned
as either consistent, accurate, true and ethical, or not.

I believe we can reach consensus on CONTENT and MEANING that is
either unifying because we agree it is consistent with truth and justice.

But we will go in circles if all the arguments are based on
trying to attack or discredit the sources, because that just invokes more defensiveness
and equivalent responses attacking/discrediting the source of criticism.

Instead of focusing on what is the objection to the actual material.

 

[emilynghiem]

it's not an opinion that not one word written in the christian bible was written by the hand of the 1st century religious itinerant the c bible attempts to portray.

nor is the prescribed religion of antiquity, liberation theology or any religion at all mentioned in that book.

BreezeWood
Jesus didn't physically write the teachings in
Buddhism or the Constitution, or the laws of science
that Newton, Einstein and other scientist leaders wrote down.

Does that mean all science needs to be thrown out and discredited
because imperfect people wrote those down?

The natural laws in the Constitution and spiritual teachings in Buddhism
have true meaning and application to people, even if the Founders
and Writers were flawed human beings.

Are we going to throw out all writings and wisdom from all people
because none of us is perfect?

 

[BreezeWood]

BreezeWood
Jesus didn't physically write the teachings in
Buddhism or the Constitution, or the laws of science
that Newton, Einstein and other scientist leaders wrote down.

Does that mean all science needs to be thrown out and discredited
because imperfect people wrote those down?

The natural laws in the Constitution and spiritual teachings in Buddhism
have true meaning and application to people, even if the Founders
and Writers were flawed human beings.

Are we going to throw out all writings and wisdom from all people
because none of us is perfect?

Your opinion is your own and I accept that.

it's not an opinion that not one word written in the christian bible was written by the hand of the 1st century religious itinerant the c bible attempts to portray.

Are we going to throw out all writings and wisdom from all people
because none of us is perfect?

not sure you addressed the point being made, and will clarify for you that the lack of material provided by the religious itinerant is no accident as there can not be a miscomprehension for the spoken, religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - they died for, for admission to the Everlasting ... is an omission completely avoided by the christian bible.

those who you mentioned authored their works themselves and are held accountable for what they wrote. no such accountability exists or can be found in the christian bible -

the religion of antiquity requires purity and is its goal, no sinners need apply - no such concept as perfect exists for anyone or anything. including immortals.

 

[JustAGuy1]

not sure you addressed the point being made, and will clarify for you that the lack of material provided by the religious itinerant is no accident as there can not be a miscomprehension for the spoken, religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - they died for, for admission to the Everlasting ... is an omission completely avoided by the christian bible.

those who you mentioned authored their works themselves and are held accountable for what they wrote. no such accountability exists or can be found in the christian bible -

the religion of antiquity requires purity and is its goal, no sinners need apply - no such concept as perfect exists for anyone or anything. including immortals.

LOL, nobody has to prove anything to you kid.

 

[BreezeWood]

LOL, nobody has to prove anything to you kid.

you have no proof - to prove to anyone ...

misrepresentation of the 1st century and the history of christian persecution and victimization of the innocent uninterrupted throughout the centuries is a clarion call to bring justice to those that have none.

and is the proper interpretation of 1st century, liberation theology the itinerant did give their life for.

 

[JustAGuy1]

you have no proof - to prove to anyone ...

View attachment 562986

misrepresentation of the 1st century and the history of christian persecution and victimization of the innocent uninterrupted throughout the centuries is a clarion call to bring justice to those that have none.

and is the proper interpretation of 1st century, liberation theology the itinerant did give their life for.

My Bible knowledge is jut fine and is not in need of any correction by you. You don't believe and that's fine. I do and that's fine too. You've made your choice and that' ok.

 

[BreezeWood]

My Bible knowledge is jut fine and is not in need of any correction by you. You don't believe and that's fine. I do and that's fine too. You've made your choice and that' ok.

by anyone ...

have you ever thought to bring to justice the crucifiers, sortof inconvenient though why bother your own comfort level while reading their book - and surly that guy deserved what he got just like jesus.

 

[emilynghiem]

not sure you addressed the point being made, and will clarify for you that the lack of material provided by the religious itinerant is no accident as there can not be a miscomprehension for the spoken, religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - they died for, for admission to the Everlasting ... is an omission completely avoided by the christian bible.

those who you mentioned authored their works themselves and are held accountable for what they wrote. no such accountability exists or can be found in the christian bible -

the religion of antiquity requires purity and is its goal, no sinners need apply - no such concept as perfect exists for anyone or anything. including immortals.

Dear BreezeWood
1. What proof do you provide for your beliefs that you demand Christians/Bible fail to provide?
2. Your arguments also focus only on contesting the authorship issues and never focusing on the CONTENT of the actual principles. You are NOT addressing the actual CONTENT but arguing about claims about authorship.
This is like arguing over Shakespeare's authorship, instead of arguing whether the CONTENT of the writing contains universal truth REGARDLESS of authorship and fraud or false claims that do not change whether the CONTENT is consistent with common truth.

3. And lastly your claim that no impure human being can author real universal truth is also relative: we can still express absolute universal truths even though our expressions are limited, relative or even flawed.

When scientists first sought to map out the solar system, some of the presentations were incomplete, or flawed like with the geocentric systems or the status of Pluto as a planet or not.

The Constitutional laws on equal protections and Equal Justice Under Law did not apply to enslaved or formerly enslaved persons, so this had to be reformed.

Flawed people wrote these laws, that contain both truth and errors to be refined and reformed later as humanity progresses.

You want to focus on throwing out all the Bible and all Christianity based on flaws instead of correcting and reforming the path to get on track.

The same arguments can be applied to you BreezeWood
1. You and I are equally limited, biased or flawed as human beings so if you say nobody who is imperfect can witness to real truth, then you and I and everyone are equally disqualified.

2. You have no proof that anything you say is authored solely and directly by divine sources without flawed humans touching the process.

This is why I believe Consensus will determine what is divine universal truth that supercedes any human bias flaws or limits.

By the time we agree on the CONTENT and principles of universal truth and process of establishing agreed truth, that will lead and determine it OVER any flaws or errors or biases in the expressions

We can still use the Bible, flaws and all to COMMUNICATE truth and correct errors and resolve conflicts.
We can still use the LANGUAGE concepts and principles in
The Bill of Rights. Buddhist teachings, etc. To address and resolve differences in our perceptions and reach solutions agreeable to both sides with different approaches or priorities.

We do not have to be perfect.

BreezeWood even a sixth grade band that doesn't play "perfectly" in tune can play a symphony, even if it isn't as refined as the professional orchestra ensemble that does a better job closer to perfection.

You are not perfectly omniscient but havr your limits and biases as do Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, Constitutionalists etc.

Any of our systems can be used to express what we see and understand from our perspective and experiences.

The challenge is learning to communicate universally, knowing all people have our own relative and limited/biased methods and means of expression.

Nobody is perfect or captures all of God's truth.

Like an orchestra, we can at least learn to play the parts we are given and harmonize with the rest. As diverse as our parts are. And with all the flaws and imperfect delivery we each have.

We can still harmonize and play in tune with each other.

And like science, we did not invent the laws that came with the universe. We just learn to write them down, to communicate and AGREE what the laws are.

We do not have to be perfect or omniscient to do this.

Or you and I would be equally disqualified as anyone else!

 

[BreezeWood]

Dear BreezeWood
1. What proof do you provide for your beliefs that you demand Christians/Bible fail to provide?
2. Your arguments also focus only on contesting the authorship issues and never focusing on the CONTENT of the actual principles. You are NOT addressing the actual CONTENT but arguing about claims about authorship.
This is like arguing over Shakespeare's authorship, instead of arguing whether the CONTENT of the writing contains universal truth REGARDLESS of authorship and fraud or false claims that do not change whether the CONTENT is consistent with common truth.

3. And lastly your claim that no impure human being can author real universal truth is also relative: we can still express absolute universal truths even though our expressions are limited, relative or even flawed.

When scientists first sought to map out the solar system, some of the presentations were incomplete, or flawed like with the geocentric systems or the status of Pluto as a planet or not.

The Constitutional laws on equal protections and Equal Justice Under Law did not apply to enslaved or formerly enslaved persons, so this had to be reformed.

Flawed people wrote these laws, that contain both truth and errors to be refined and reformed later as humanity progresses.

You want to focus on throwing out all the Bible and all Christianity based on flaws instead of correcting and reforming the path to get on track.

The same arguments can be applied to you BreezeWood
1. You and I are equally limited, biased or flawed as human beings so if you say nobody who is imperfect can witness to real truth, then you and I and everyone are equally disqualified.

2. You have no proof that anything you say is authored solely and directly by divine sources without flawed humans touching the process.

This is why I believe Consensus will determine what is divine universal truth that supercedes any human bias flaws or limits.

By the time we agree on the CONTENT and principles of universal truth and process of establishing agreed truth, that will lead and determine it OVER any flaws or errors or biases in the expressions

We can still use the Bible, flaws and all to COMMUNICATE truth and correct errors and resolve conflicts.
We can still use the LANGUAGE concepts and principles in
The Bill of Rights. Buddhist teachings, etc. To address and resolve differences in our perceptions and reach solutions agreeable to both sides with different approaches or priorities.

We do not have to be perfect.

BreezeWood even a sixth grade band that doesn't play "perfectly" in tune can play a symphony, even if it isn't as refined as the professional orchestra ensemble that does a better job closer to perfection.

You are not perfectly omniscient but havr your limits and biases as do Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, Constitutionalists etc.

Any of our systems can be used to express what we see and understand from our perspective and experiences.

The challenge is learning to communicate universally, knowing all people have our own relative and limited/biased methods and means of expression.

Nobody is perfect or captures all of God's truth.

Like an orchestra, we can at least learn to play the parts we are given and harmonize with the rest. As diverse as our parts are. And with all the flaws and imperfect delivery we each have.

We can still harmonize and play in tune with each other.

And like science, we did not invent the laws that came with the universe. We just learn to write them down, to communicate and AGREE what the laws are.

We do not have to be perfect or omniscient to do this.

Or you and I would be equally disqualified as anyone else!

that is not true ... nearly every page of the christian bible contains - forgeries and fallacies - as has been repeatedly brought to your attention.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

the above is a forgery and was never spoken by the 1st century religious itinerant ... nor did they ever say, any being is born a hopeless sinner. the contortions of the christian bible are boundless.

what are the sins christians are unable to stop committing - as asked before - if they actually have ever tried seems most doubtful.