badger3k

You mean the part where he says he'd like to spend Heaven with a being that forces women to marry their rapists isn't as bad? Or his very confusing errors on right/wrong/good/evil, or his pride in abandoning his friends (and it sounds like his family as well), his refusal to face facts, his unthinking literalism (but only when it suits him - look at his ignoring the Ten Commandments), his admission that there are other gods besides YHWH, his idiotic "you can't have good/evil without god"...I could go on and on. He's a sad case, and if he is serious, should be a poster child for everything that's wrong with this mindset. I hope he's not serious, or else I feel really, really sorry for his family. Hopefully they can get away before he has them drink the kool-aid to be with his loving, vengeful sky daddy.

I literally read the last few pages open-mouthed going, "he can't be serious." What can you say to such arrogant ignorance?

badger3k

Or just skip the first step and say that the atheist is familiar with the New Testament, apologetics, archaeologyhistory, psychology, higher criticism, philosophy, and even a bit of Greek and Hebrew (thanks to people here) and will give the New Testament Scholar answer when needed. We might just keep up with the "God's Bipolar" bit to pull a fundies chain, if we're bored. But not for a serious discussion, I'd hope.

Failte

Indeed. The condescension of "it will be explained (by me)" when he he so obviously one of the least informed people in the thread is certainly laugh-worthy.

I'm not a biblical scholar. I don't read Greek or Aramaic or Latin (well, a little latin) but it doesn't take an expert to see that IBIH is simply pulling "translations" and "meanings" out of thin air to suit his own beliefs. I can do the work to find the real info, and I am intelligent enough to understand the posts and references of people here who are far better educated about this than I am. I've learned quite a bit from this thread,

IBIH, If "The lord said..." is the only "proof" you need, well, I'm going to start writing things like that. I'm being inspired by your god: THE LORD SAID YOU SHOULD GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY".

Don't believe it? Why not? I, at least, can prove that I exist and that I actually said that. I swear that the above statement is true. I mean, i know it's not in the bible, but I've been tasked with writing new prophesy. Skeptical? Why? Why are you giving ancient historians and storytellers, who are unknown in most cases, more credibility than me? What criteria do you use to accept or reject data? Why would you dismiss my statement out of hand (or the statements of anyone, if they claim to be channeling god -since, really, how would you know they were or weren't?) and yet accept a book of collected stories? Will you accept my revelation? Why not?

badger3k

Well, if your name is Caesar, then the bible does say to give to you what is yours, and that was money, so...><

Failte

It does bring up a reasonable question, though - despite my sarcasm in the earlier post. How do believers judge the "new" revelations by those claiming to be speaking god's word? How are prophets...verified, I guess is the word?

I watch some of the televangelists and I can see that they have duped thousands of people into believing their words, which are usually contradictory to accepted doctrine and I wonder what sort of process people go through to arrive at either a) this person is obviously insane and is just trying to scam me, and b) this person is the real deal, and god is speaking through them?

And I suppose I could change my name to Caesar, if that was necessary to be believed....

show_no_mercy

I know a couple of people named Caesar :constern01:

IBelieveInHymn

How in the world am I twisting scripture? When you read 'Hate your parents', you thought Jesus was teaching hatred towards our own parents. I had to come in here and sent you straight on that. Jesus was very familiar with the Commandments, And I don't think he would try to break them in any way. Jesus said; I have not come to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them.

So, by Jesus saying, hate your parents, do you believe that is enforcing the 10 commandments?

I can't believe some atheists believe Jesus said to break the 10 commandments.

This is sheer lunacy!!

:Cheeky:

IBelieveInHymn

I had to search through the root of the word meaning for "hate" in Hebrew and Greek so you guys would understand what Jesus was actually saying to his Disciples. I have explained it thoroughly. If you can't accept it, then there is no help for you.

tynlamzic

I have not spoken of this until now, but, yea verily...I am THE LORD! I am writing here through an amanuensis - I thought of using toast, or aubergines, or a bun, but controlling the mind of a human is much easier. Incidentally, I do do that occasonally, I know I've given you free will, but needs must, sometimes. You see, I get to re-write the rules as I see fit.

Anyway, here's a few things we need to get straight:

1) I never spoke to George Bush Jr. Ever. That was Stan. By the way, some of you know Stan as Satan...sorry about that, it was a transcription error.
2) I like meat pies. You must all eat meat pies on Tuesdays. I don't mind what sort of meat. Pasties don't count, nor do empanadas.
3) No more eating lobster. I really did mean it about the shellfish.
4) I like the PS3 but not the Xbox 360. You must all stop playing Xbox NOW.
5) IBIH, this one's for you: I didn't send that meteor. It was Stan messing with your head. Sorry. But hey, I'm here now!

I'll let you know more when I'm in the mood.

God (through Steve)

graymouser

This remains a lame apologetic, and contradictory with the one you've tried to use on genea, which assumes that Jesus spoke Aramaic - though there is no evidence that "genea" in Matt. 14:34 had an Aramaic original any more than there is evidence that "misew" in Lk. 14:26 had a Hebrew original. In both cases, you are doing eisegesis - reading other assumptions (Jesus didn't mean "generation," Jesus couldn't have meant that you should hate your parents) into the text rather than trying to understand the text that exists (exegesis).

In the case of Lk. 14:26, you're up the creek without a paddle. Misew is Strong's word 3404, and here's another context in which it is imputed to Jesus:

"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth ." Lk 16:13 NASB.

Here misew is used for "hate" and kataphronew is used for "despise." Neither means anything like "love less than." Jesus is not telling his disciples to love money less than God, but to despise money and love God. It's important enough that he uses two words meaning "hate" to get his point across. Christ's followers are not to love wealth less than God, they are to loathe it with all their being, opposite to how they serve God. Or consider another Lukan verse:

"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man." Lk 6:22 NASB.

The author of Luke uses misew not once, but seven times. In every case it's a pretty visceral word - often referring to how the world will react to Jesus's followers. The contrast with love in Lk. 16:13 is a very strong one - yet in your apologetic, in the one verse that you have trouble with, misew is a mild word meaning "love X less than Y."

Now...I found all that by looking in a concordance. I explicitly stuck with the uses of misew in Luke because it's the most obviously relevant to this verse, but it's pretty clear throughout the NT that the word is not used to mean "love X less than Y." You say you're explaining the verse by researching the word, but how can that be when your explanation isn't even vaguely relevant for every other use of that word in the same gospel?