Christianity teaches that god created the earth in six days and that he rested on the seventh day. It also teaches god's powers are infinite.
Soo my question was if god's power are soo great why did he rest on the seventh day? That makes him mortal, Why would an all powerful being take a rest? And if he's incapable of working seven days straight then he could also be incapable of doing other stuff like saving people for which several people pray for every day.
why do religious people never think about this kind of questions, it's like if you could reason with religious people then there weren't any religious people.
This is abrahamic faith thinking not dharmic
I agree, it was referring to Abrahamic faith...
Ok so here's the thing God did things in reference to us. Of course its dumb for him to rest but he did it so we can learn. If he did it why not us but this refers to only the laws of God.
So we can learn how to rest?
Adeniyi Spencer does God need to show you how to rest,, seriously. Are you not capable of knowing how to rest without Gods intervention. No problem learn how to listen to your body and it will teach you how to rest, trust me your body knows this very well..
Kinda like when and why. Since God worked for six days its imbeded in people to work six days and rest on the 7th.
It's been like this since the beginning
, how did you expect me to think someone needs to show me how to rest ? - Maybe you do not understand the statement.
Lolxx I ask myself these questions over an over the truth is The people behind relocate just avoiding knowledge and subjecting their selves to sheer reason.. They don't even understand the name God and its powers contradiction of their ideologies always lolxx if God is subject to numbers then He is as well as a finite being
The Jewish word used in the original text means to (וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙) cease/desist/rest, not necessarily the tiredness rest. I advise you to check out original language texts in the Bible when you encounter a problem. In my experience, the vast majority of issues disappear when one does that.
There are no original text on the bible, merely copies of copies of copies accumulated 500 years after jesus died..
Except this is the same for literally every ancient text in existence. Our earliest copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars come from the Middle Ages, does that mean we chuck out the whole history of Caesar's conquests too? And ignoring your completely off dating, the Jewish and Christian oral tradition/scribes were scarily accurate in their copies. New Testament copies abound from the 2nd century all throughout late antiquity and the Middle Ages. Surveys of these copies reveal that, beyond a handful of spelling differences, these copies are near 100% the same. The same goes for Old Testament copies: Extremely accurate, almost no differences in all major extent copies. Idk why I'm even replying to this actually, you just changed the subject with the snap of your fingers. Your original question has nothing to do with textual integrity.
The textual integrity and accuracy of the Bible translation is in doubt. That is why there are many different Bible versions in existence today. Are you not aware that the Bible of the Catholic Church is very different from other Bibles and with about 8 additional BOOKS that is not in the other popular Bibles (with only 66 BOOKS) used mainly in penticostal churches? Are you also not aware that "Jehovah's Witness" church has their own Bible which is not exactly the same with other Bibles? Are you not aware of some other Bibles with divergent translations? The integrity of the Christian Bible has been greatly compromised and that is why there are so many different types of Churches/denominations today with their own brands of Bible intepretations.
Ofiemo Mcdowell interesting, thank you, I find it strange that Christians fail to recognize this basic truth, which is so fundamental to their religion..
You have conflated the issues of textual integrity and canon. Textual integrity refers to the maintaining of the original text through the line of future copies, whereas your entire comment talks about the canon debates between Christian denominations. And I am very much aware of these canonical disputes in Christendom, I think it would be more respectful if you didn't assume without warrant that I am ignorant of this; in fact, it is a major area of research for me. The different translations of certain English Bibles has little to nothing to do with the reliability of the text but the philosophy of the translator, especially in recent decades. For example, the NIV aims for a thought-to-thought translation, the Message Bible aims to make the Bible easier to read for new Christians, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (my personal favourite) aims to translate accurately both word for word and thought for thought. I have done some study of the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation, and it is a highly skewed, misleading translation looked down upon by the vast majority of Christians and Biblical scholars. As for other non-Protestant canons, you are right, there is an unfortunate split in the Christian world over those. However, careful research can lead you to the most accurate canon, and I have arrived at the Protestant canon, as the other books in the Catholic and Orthodox canons were mostly affirmed hundreds of years after the apostolic age. It is also not as gigantic an issue as you make it out to be. All major denominations are united on core dogma, such as the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Unfortunately some of them like the Catholics have added unnecessary doctrines like Papal Infallibility and Immaculate Conception, but this is a debate within the Christian world, and it does not therefore make the faith uncertain in its' truth, as there are rich arguments on all sides.
"why do religious people never think about this kind of questions, it's like if you could reason with religious people then there weren't any religious people." Clearly you are new to the subject, because there are Christian responses to more issues than you even know exist. This one is no different, and it takes a basic google search to see that.
Perhaps it's takes common sense to see that. Being a believer generally makes one lose common sense, and believe in some truth which cannot be proven. This is a theists biggest dillema...
"Being a believer generally makes one lose common sense." [CITATION NEEDED] In all seriousness though, this is a bald faced assertion. Ironically, you back it up with no evidence whatsoever, and it completely contradicts my experience whereby Christians tend to be the most clearheaded people around, so I need not reply. "and believe in some truth that cannot be proven" *cannot be proven empirically. Fortunately, empirical evidence isn't the only truth seeking mechanism we have, otherwise we'd have to empirically prove the truth of empiricism, which is a circular argument. Proof of God comes from the philosophical and experiential realms primarily, and they aren't arguments you should take lightly.
Paul Mccarthy definition of a believer... To have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. Secondly claiming that Christians tend to be the most clearheaded people around is egoistic, and sectarian, with no consideration to the many great religions of the world, far superior to christianity. As for the definition of truth see above.. L besides philosophy does not subscribe to any gods existence, it attempts to make sense of the world around us backed with scientific evidence.
Your definition of a believer is actually quite accurate, well done. But your own definition trips you up. Logically speaking, you're right, we don't have absolute proof of our beliefs, but then again literally no one does for anything. Much science tends to be speculative; reasonable (mostly), but speculative still (dark matter/energy is a big example of this). The philosopher Descartes demonstrates that almost nothing can be "absolutely proven" without doubt. So you kinda trip up your own position here with just two words; absolute proof. "Secondly claiming that Christians tend to be the most clearheaded people around is egoistic, and sectarian, with no consideration to the many great religions of the world, far superior to christianity. " First, by what measure do you claim other religions are "superior" to Christianity? If we don't accept your assumptions of "superiority" it means absolutely nothing as a claim. Another bald assertion. Second, you say I'm being egoistic for believing Christians are among the most clearheaded individuals yet it's perfectly okay for you to say "Being a believer generally makes one lose common sense,"? Is that not the definition of being egotistic? You're literally claiming most of the planet does not have basic common sense. I said Christians tend to be the most clearheaded people I know IN MY experience, because I don't know the whole world! And I also don't discount that non-Christians are clearheaded too. Yet here you are making a global claim, yet calling me egoistic... Philosophy doesn't subscribe to any belief, atheistic or theistic, so what's your point? When did I say philosophy "subscribes to gods existence"? Philosophy is not an ideology but a tool, and I said there are solid philosophical arguments for God's existence. As with the science application, this is not true in many areas of philosophy. Moral/ethical philosophy, for example, almost never uses science as to avoid the is/ought fallacy. Likewise, both Christian AND atheist philosophers acknowledge that asking for empirical evidence for God is unreasonable as he is beyond our universe, hence why they all focus on the philosophical arguments. Given that, if philosophical arguments for God can withstand scrutiny, then his existence is more likely if not almost proven. Sorry for the long replies, I tend to want to respond to everything
Paul Mccarthy I normally despise long replies, I prefer to keep it simple, anyway I understand your point of view, although I disagree with most. " Proof of God comes from philosophy" that's your statement, Secondly what Christians believe is their personal truth, in no way does it impact the intimate truth which is universal. Claiming superiority over others is clearly an egoistical attitude, and has been the root cause of many religious wars mostly from Christianity and Islam. History has proved that.
Islam too teaches that same.... They copied the Christians.... Both failed the test.
The word rest of the Bible not necessarily that God gets tired. It implies, He completed His works.
That's an apologetic excuse, since when rest indicates a job complete.. Definition of rest freedom from activity or labor state of motionlessness or inactivity Unless you are using a special dictionary that comes with the bible.
To what extent would you propagate lies?
Try to be honest, maybe just once in a day. This really got to me. Rest= Job completion? Solve the equation again Sir.
We should not consider God as a human. The word rest in the bible is not what we imagine that after a six days work got tired and rested. The simple conclusion to that that God stopped after He completed His creative activities. God is tireless, He works continuously without pause.
Some human beings thinks that their level is in God, that's why they continually question God and some don't have god at all because their minds was corrupted by the devil.
He rested not because of exhaustion but simply to let what was set in motion to play out. This is known to almost anyone that has read the bible and not just had sound bites guiding there perspection.
That would be your assumption, not a biblical reference I suppose ... Correct..
What would the assumption be? It is my thoughts, and what seems obvious when all materials have been reviewed
Was it not stated in the Bible that he commanded things into creation without actually manually working?
Spoken into existence I think what's your point
Troy Bonds all materials reviewed... By you or God, if God hoe do you know that, did God personally tell you, I guess not, most likely another assumption by you.. L
7 days are represent of day of sabbath. And that logical word
Is a rock that is at rest mortal?