The End Is Near

@DocSavage It's happened countless times before.

@DocSavage
I think it's funny how you keep comparing your ignorance of the Bible with your exaggerated intelligence so that you don't have to be held accountable to the God you don't have the sense to know exists. It's like watching a dumb dog chase it's own tail over and over and over . . .

@PathwayMachine If childish insults are all you have to offer, you may as well give up now.

@PathwayMachine
God is cow shit remember. You’re the one who said that. I don’t believe in gods, so I have no respect for them , even less so now.

@PathwayMachine On what basis do you hold your book to be authoritative about anything?

@PathwayMachine
You just made the case for Atheism. All your talk shows that gods are man made. And their existence is completely based on our own wants and needs.

@DocSavage
I don't understand how anyone could be so stupid. Really. I don't.

God means worshipped.

Understand?

@newjaninev2
Subjective.

@PathwayMachine
God then has no power which we do not give him. You said I would have to account myself to one some day. I do not acknowledge god’s authority.
Therefore Jehovah has no more power over me, than Zeus has over you.

@PathwayMachine
Clarify something for me. WTF is your point ? You say a god is something or someone that is worshipped . Irrelevant.
“The End is near” what is the point of summing up the bible? Are you implying that it has something to do with it ? Or that it predicts the coming event ? If gods are trivial, what makes the bible a source reference?
You aren’t making any sense .

@PathwayMachine So it’s authoritative merely because you say it’s authoritative?

So, why not a Harry Potter novel?

Or the user manual for my refrigerator?

You have done a sterling job of showing theism to be ‘just worship anything you like, on the basis of anything at all, and then make up any stuff about it that you like’.

Meanwhile, we atheists will just sigh, and carry on dealing with reality

@DocSavage
You have asked the question we’ve all been asking 😀

@newjaninev2
Spend a lot of time saying nothing, doesn’t he

@newjaninev2
At least that is an authoritative document. At least it's based on facts.

@Bushranger
Said the one probably not having read the document. And how would you determine it, or the Bible, or any other document authoritative?

@DocSavage
What is irrelevant? Who says it is? Why do they say it is? Are you saying that? Why? A god is something or someone that is worshipped. Correct. One of the countless gods to ever have allegedly existed has allegedly created the heavens and earth. Not all gods are alleged to have done this.


The point was that the end is near according to, among other sources, the Bible. The summary explains in simple terms, the Bible's perspective on the end of the world. Not the planet. Not mankind, but of the world.


You said gods are trivial, I didn't. Your problem is that you think a god is only one type of thing. You have no clear explanation of what a god is. You seem to think that a god can only be God.

@newjaninev2
No, it's authoritative merely because you say it isn't.


I think that the Harry Potter novels are authoritative on evolution.


The refrigerator user manual has an unreliable record when it comes to prophecy.


Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods.


Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

@PathwayMachine Let's see, a user manual describes a product and gives details about how to use it. If you compare the product details in the manual with the product it describes a correlation between the two will exist. If there is no correlation then the manual is wrong, ie, not authoritative.

The details in the manual regarding use also need to correlate with the usual usage of the product. Again if it doesn't then the manual is not authoritative. It's easy to check because the manual needs to correlate with the reality of the product.

While I've not read @newjaninev2's particular user manual, my experience with similar documents gives me a good reason to assume it conforms to reality.

I admit that it's been a long time since I read the Bible (yes, cover to cover and more than once), my recollection and subsequent brief readings lead me to believe it does not represent physical reality. It is not authoritative in regard to physical reality.

@Bushranger @Bushranger It would be great if the biblical stories were accurate and rational. However, that was never their purpose. All of the biblical stories, except some in the apocrypha, illustrate one or more of the real Ten Commandments found in Exodus 34:11-26. The stories are basically pop quizzes. When the listener, or reader, hears or reads the story, he should be able to explain which of the Ten Commandments it is about and if it is showing the benefits of complying or the negative consequences of disobeying. The miracles are based on Exodus 34:10.

Remember, the Bible does not teach morality. It teaches complete obedience and total loyalty to the Boss (God, the emperor, the chief priest, the king, or the family father). Therefore, if a person doesn't know that he will never make sense of the stories. They don't have to be factual to illustrate the point.

For example. Jesus had three large meetings with thousands of people in attendance. There was the Sermon on the Mount and the two times with the crowds where he fed them with a few fish and pieces of bread. Which of the Ten Commandments does that illustrate in action? When he was born the wise men brought him gifts. What did that signify and which of the Ten Commandments does it illustrate? You can do that with all of the stories but you must know what the real Ten Commandments are.

BTW, there is only one major character in the Bible who did exactly as he was told to do without whining, although he didn't have a clue as to how to get it done. That was Noah. And when it was over he killed lots of the animals and roasted them and got falling down drunk.

@PathwayMachine
According to you, anything you choose to worship... so belief is irrelevant


1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

Where in there can you find any need for disbelief or lack of belief? Belief is irrelevant.

@Diotrephes That's been my point all along. The Bible is metaphor and allegory, designed to teach the morality of the times. Unfortunately, there are those in the community who believe the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate. And why only the ten commandments? Weren't there a lot more in the Bible?

@newjaninev2
Stop and think for a minute. Just a minute. What you've described . . . is belief. You don't worship any gods? Why not? You don't believe.


This . . .



Is a god. I've just proved a god exists. Only anyone with any sense already knew that. I didn't need to prove it.


This . . .


Is Amaterasu Okami. She's a Japanese goddess. She doesn't exist. How do I know? Because they invented her. Like JK Rowling did Harry Potter. She doesn't exist. I just proved a god don't exist. But everyone already knew that. I didn't need to prove it.


I think maybe I'm seeing a trend here. Postulation is science and not unlike science you tend to postulate before you actually bother, well, even to do a little research. Or apparently, think for yourself.

I've just EASILY disproved two of your claims. Your postulations. Cool, huh?


Let's go for three. This may be tougher, but I think I can disprove it. In the unlikely case that you are honest.

Ready?

Oxford dictionary definition of a god: "a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god."

This . . .


Is your god.

@PathwayMachine
No, you’ve just argued that you think a god exists


No, you’ve just argued that you think she doesn’t exist

What you think isn’t proof of anything except to you, and even then it’s proof only that it’s what you think.


and again you go straight past evidence and testing that evidence and then really testing any explanation of that evidence

It doesn’t simply stop at postulation 😀

Your Oxford dictionary definition is circular. Before you can award something the appropriate supreme importance, you have to know what it is... but it’s the supreme importance that defines what it is, so you cannot bestow it, because you do not know what supreme importance would be appropriate, because... well, you get the idea.

Why do you pretend to know that I allot ‘supreme importance ‘ to genetics?

More convenient pretence... you seem to have quite a supply available

@PathwayMachine So, here’s a chance for you to do better:


1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

By the way, veering off towards the topic of science in no way addresses Number 3

This time, try facing it directly