For those who can’t make it to church today or for those who don’t believe or do not know that Jesus was a real person, risen from the dead and is alive, here is something that may help. It could be the best 45 minutes that you've ever spent.
I am a kidder at heart but never about about whether Jesus was here, or is the son of God, lived a sinless life to become a perfect sacrifice or has risen. What exactly are you referring to?
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
(Atheists have killed more people than ALL religions combined throughout our entire history) How would anybody know the number of people killed in all of history Religious Vs.Atheist? Do you consider anyone who doesn't "believe"in Jesus to be an atheist?
There is nothing to be learned from your video. Try watching or listening to the one I posted. George would say it’s ok go ahead and don’t be a fool like me.
Communism was and is atheist. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc, all killed millions for the State. The State being communist, communist being atheist. Only Muslims have probably killed far more.
There is nothing to be learned from your video. Try watching or listening to the one I posted.
I did try; made it about 7 minutes. The problem with telling a Christian that I don’t believe in the Bible is that they quote the Bible to prove me wrong.
“You cannot reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into.”
I won’t quote the Bible to you but there are many events written hundreds of years before they came to pass that could have only have been fore known.
It’s a reliable collection of historical documents. Read Isaiah 53 written 700 years before hand.
At least you admit you are a dirty rotten no good soul. We must go down that road in order to see the depravity of man. You are in a much better place than one who says my good deeds will outweigh the bad deeds at the judgement seat.
President Trump is right. Congress never ratified the Iran deal. The Obama administration did not view it as a treaty and therefore did not have Congress pass the action. It was just a way to give muslims more cash for terrorist operations. Obama muslim buddies.
LOL! Yeah, be a good person, f@ck like an alley cat & kill the bastard if there's a pregnancy! LOL!
Atheists have killed more people than ALL religions combined throughout our entire history!
Blaming Atheists?....It is not the Lord that giveth and taketh?....free will issued by God is what permits the wicked to kill. surely God knew exactly how his plans would work out before the creation of the universe and mankind.
it wasn't mankind who cast down/sent Lucifer to be prince of this world, it was Gods idea with full prior knowledge of the consequences.
What If God had not made Adam so stupid so as to listen to Eve and eat the forbidden fruit?
if Adam had been fooled by the wiliest most cunning animal [snake] I could better understand...
LOL! Yeah, be a good person, f@ck like an alley cat & kill the bastard if there's a pregnancy! LOL!
Atheists have killed more people than ALL religions combined throughout our entire history!
Blaming Atheists?....It is not the Lord that giveth and taketh?....free will issued by God is what permits the wicked to kill. surely God knew exactly how his plans would work out before the creation of the universe and mankind.
it wasn't mankind who cast down/sent Lucifer to be prince of this world, it was Gods idea with full prior knowledge of the consequences.
What If God had not made Adam so stupid so as to listen to Eve and eat the forbidden fruit?
if Adam had been fooled by the wiliest most cunning animal [snake] I could better understand...
Pussy has been the cause of most stupid decisions throughout human history.
Never mind Stalin, etc, who killed not on behalf of atheism but to maintain power and control....the bible tells us that, except for a boatload of refugees, God killed the whole world, guilty and innocent alike by drowning.
For those who can’t make it to church today or for those who don’t believe or do not know that Jesus was a real person, risen from the dead and is alive, here is something that may help. It could be the best 45 minutes that you've ever spent.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Why? It's more fun to be a bad person. If there are no real consequences.
Now, why don’t you mind your own business and quit trying to save my dirty, rotten, no good soul.
Ravi Sacharias - net worth approx. $7.5 million
evidently theres a generous commission in trying to save the wicked...the more sheep they can shear the better..
You sound like you are against a man, who has the most important job in the world, (what better can a man do than to try and preach the Word so that people like us can be saved from the wrath to come) who makes a lot of money.? Compare that 7.5 M that Ravi makes to the 40 M that Joel Olsteen makes. Follow the money and report back to me how and where Ravi’s money goes and where and how Joel’s money is spent. They are on opposite sides of the Gospel. One is the true Gospel and one is a false Gospel.
I did try; made it about 7 minutes. The problem with telling a Christian that I don’t believe in the Bible is that they quote the Bible to prove me wrong.
You make a great point. Give it 7 more minutes today. He brings out a lot of points that have nothing to do with bible verses. You didn’t even make it past the first bullet.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Why? It's more fun to be a bad person. If there are no real consequences.
Lol. Well the Problem is, some of the nastiest people I know are also the most religious...But they go to church on Sunday and repent and it starts all over on Monday as all sins have been washed away and forgiven. We all know right from wrong and yet we still need a book to tell us what to do? Can’t wait to really find out what’s out there after we pass. And if there is a ‘god’ and he or she sends me to hell even though I was good person and giving me a free will to choose, then he’s a hypocrite and a dictator. Believe in me or you will burn!!
I think the problem with Christians is that, like Christ, they aren't afraid to point out deplorable behavior. That never goes over well. The whole "go and sin no more" thing really pisses people off.
Well the Problem is, some of the nastiest people I know are also the most religious...But they go to church on Sunday and repent and it starts all over on Monday as all sins have been washed away and forgiven.
See my above post.
Quote
We all know right from wrong and yet we still need a book to tell us what to do?
That's an assumption that obviously doesn't hold up to reality. You should be able to see that from all the wars and genocides committed by atheists like Stalin and Mao, etc. and by all the abortions. Just to name a couple things.
Quote
Can’t wait to really find out what’s out there after we pass. And if there is a ‘god’ and he or she sends me to hell even though I was good person and giving me a free will to choose, then he’s a hypocrite and a dictator. Believe in me or you will burn!!
A good argument can be made that God doesn't "send" people to Hell so much as they choose it. Free will. If a person is uncomfortable with offering worship and praise to God for 1 hour out of the 168 hours in a week, how would they feel about doing that constantly for an eternity?
If you want the proof than pick a sermon from each of these preachers and watch or listen and take notes. If you have any wisdom at all you will see the prosperity gospel preached by Olsteen and the concern for your soul by Zacharias. Follow the money... if you still need help seeing clearly I’d be happy to listen to the 2 sermons and have a discussion with you.
For those who can’t make it to church today or for those who don’t believe or do not know that Jesus was a real person, risen from the dead and is alive, here is something that may help. It could be the best 45 minutes that you've ever spent.
Have you ever heard Olsteen say that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that we are destined to Hell unless we repent and believe in Jesus as Lord? Has he said that God is Holy or that he is a God of justice and wrath?
"Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."
I don't know if Ghandi actually said this, but it is a very true statement. The reason the Cabal/Lucifer captured the World so easily was the fault of the Church/Religion. We have the Holy Trinity which all know about, but who knows about the Unholy Trinity? Or what it comprises of? It is the full knowledge and understanding of the latter that saves the Kingdom and in the mirror effect it is the lack of full knowledge and understanding that turns the Kingdom into a Hell.......on Earth. One of the more recent drastic mistakes by the Church/Religion was giving up their sovereignty for a bribe. Around 1954 they began signing contracts with the IRS for 501C3 status (a bribe). A bribe trumps any teaching of Jesus is Lord, it renders it noneffective. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Revelation 18:4
Send Joel 20 bucks. He will pray for you. Send him 50 he will get word to God to forgive you. Cause he is Joel and Joel knows.......
So what if ya dont go to church. Some people dont need a snake oil salesman to tell em how to believe in a higher power....
Scheme since the dawn of time. For power, control, and money.
And which bible is correct and which christian spin off is the correct one. Hasn't man had influence in what goes into what bible version since the dawn of it all.... How can man arbitrarily decide what is gods word from documents written by other men.
What's that saying about judging others or your gonna get judged yourself.....
“A good argument can be made that God doesn't "send" people to Hell so much as they choose it. Free will. If a person is uncomfortable with offering worship and praise to God for 1 hour out of the 168 hours in a week, how would they feel about doing that constantly for an eternity?” Obviously we have a different point of view on free will to choose and be punished for it. So choose my way or burn. Lol. Not surprised, that is opinion from a Brain washed bible thumper.
“A good argument can be made that God doesn't "send" people to Hell so much as they choose it.
I agree 100%
Originally Posted by Dre
If a person is uncomfortable with offering worship and praise to God for 1 hour out of the 168 hours in a week, how would they feel about doing that constantly for an eternity?
if the one true god doesn't want one of his created beings to go to the bad place, he'll find a way to save him. otherwise, his created being has an important role to play there, so god assigns him to that location/condition/dimension. it's all so very simple.
no wonder humans have been kickin' false gods to the side of the road for centuries now.
What's that saying about judging others or your gonna get judged yourself...
I call it warning and passing along valid information. I don’t consider that judging. Just passing along what has taken many years to learn through failure, sin, guilt, chastisement from God, prayer, & studying/reading His Word.
For those who can’t make it to church today or for those who don’t believe or do not know that Jesus was a real person, risen from the dead and is alive, here is something that may help. It could be the best 45 minutes that you've ever spent.
Ravi used to be a good guy but he started compromising with total heretics. Not good. And then there is the big big money... Not the apostle Paul. Don't mean to be a Debbie downer, but honestly do some research on his apostasy and you will find it.
For those who can’t make it to church today or for those who don’t believe or do not know that Jesus was a real person, risen from the dead and is alive, here is something that may help. It could be the best 45 minutes that you've ever spent.
For those who can’t make it to church today or for those who don’t believe or do not know that Jesus was a real person, risen from the dead and is alive, here is something that may help. It could be the best 45 minutes that you've ever spent.
He formed his own Toronto-based ministry, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, in 1984 and is the host of radio shows called “Let My People Think” and “Just Thinking,” all of which has helped him pocket a net worth of $7.5 million.Sep 14, 2016 Hooch.net › richest-religious-leaders Gilded Gods: How The Richest Religious Leaders Live - Hooch.net
Any preacher with a net worth of 7.5 million dollars has completely missed the point of Jesus teachings. Anyone that promotes said Charlatans has also completely missed the point.
LOL! Yeah, be a good person, f@ck like an alley cat & kill the bastard if there's a pregnancy! LOL!
Atheists have killed more people than ALL religions combined throughout our entire history!
Blaming Atheists?....It is not the Lord that giveth and taketh?....free will issued by God is what permits the wicked to kill. surely God knew exactly how his plans would work out before the creation of the universe and mankind.
it wasn't mankind who cast down/sent Lucifer to be prince of this world, it was Gods idea with full prior knowledge of the consequences.
What If God had not made Adam so stupid so as to listen to Eve and eat the forbidden fruit?
if Adam had been fooled by the wiliest most cunning animal [snake] I could better understand...
I think most people understand that people die of natural causes, disease, accidents etc. this is simply the reality of life that anyone must recognize regardless of their belief system -- and all of these take place within the natural laws of science as ordained by God. Sometimes God allows the laws of cause and effect to run their course and sometimes He miraculously intervenes.
Murder, genocide, mass killings are something completely different and most reasonable people would agree--which is why we have laws against such actions. These are based on the choices of evil men acting in accordance with their will. When looking at the horrors committed in the name of religion and the horrors committed in the name of atheism a reasonable person would conclude that mankind in general has a propensity in their nature to be selfish and evil unless they curb it. A child does not need to be taught to be selfish it's inherently there--but they need to be taught self discipline and morals.
Jesus Christ was the expression of the model of a man that God has given for our lives. You will not find any record of Him committing the atrocities being noted. Man with moral religion can still be very evil (Jesus noted that), man without any moral restraint will become more evil (Atheistic Communism has proven that). Jesus has provided the answer for mankind--in dealing with their evil inclinations and giving guidance for life.
Blaming God for reality as you perceive it changes nothing about reality--reality remains the same. But when you reject God because you cannot control Him, you choose to embrace something far worse -- random meaninglessness.
Furthermore you cannot charge God of anything unless you believe in His existence--but if you believe in His existence as truly God, then you as a man cannot call Him into judgment unless you have superior knowledge to do so, otherwise it's like a little child with their limited understanding trying to dismiss the loving guidance of parents.
You blame God for giving men freewill, but then you in turn exercise that freewill to reject God. How can you logically condemn what you at the same exercise as your right? You blame God for making man stupid, but then you assume yourself to be wiser then God.
The witness to truth is both internal--from the Scriptures and also externally corroborated by world history fulfilling the prophecies of Scripture. Both are essential to study if you truly want the truth. Since Ravi is being called into question on this thread, I would note that the presentations of Ravi typically follows those principles of presenting both internal and external witnesses. To my knowledge Ravi does not use the wealth of His ministry supported by the freewill offerings of men to serve himself, but rather he uses those resources to serve others. Ultimately his ministry will be accounted for by God.
While the professing "Church" has done some horrible things through the years that did not model Christ, the "true Church," in spite of it's failures, has modeled Christ in serving and helping others with no benefit to themselves.
No matter how many times the truth is used for selfish purposes it still remains the truth. Math is always math--some people use it to swindle others and some use it to bless others--but math is still always math.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Mystical? Are we overlooking the historical evidence for the man Jesus Christ -- such as from the secular historians and even the secular critics of that era?
the "true Church," in spite of it's failures, has modeled Christ in serving and helping others with no benefit to themselves.
Can you define your definition of "true Church". Just for clarification I am a believer in both God and Jesus, but I am also a believer in the fact that you can dress an Ape up in a tuxedo, but it is still an Ape. I do not know of many Non-501C3 churches in this country and those that are have taken a bribe for benefit and for no other reason. They, in full knowledge gives the Gov. the right to head the church and censor what they want censored. Therefore I am curious what church you are calling the "true church" and is modeling Christ. I don't see many of them targeting the money lenders along with some other "affairs of state". As I've said, I am curious and hoping there is such in this country besides those who are worshiping and doing His will in secret.
the "true Church," in spite of it's failures, has modeled Christ in serving and helping others with no benefit to themselves.
Can you define your definition of "true Church". Just for clarification I am a believer in both God and Jesus, but I am also a believer in the fact that you can dress an Ape up in a tuxedo, but it is still an Ape. I do not know of many Non-501C3 churches in this country and those that are have taken a bribe for benefit and for no other reason. They, in full knowledge gives the Gov. the right to head the church and censor what they want censored. Therefore I am curious what church you are calling the "true church" and is modeling Christ. I don't see many of them targeting the money lenders along with some other "affairs of state". As I've said, I am curious and hoping there is such in this country besides those who are worshiping and doing His will in secret.
The true church of Christ is "One" and is not defined by denominational boundaries, but yet it exists in every local body that is comprised of blood washed sinners saved by grace and who are following the teachings of Christ and His apostles. This is the testimony of the Scriptures on this point. John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. Rev.12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
the Council of Chalcedon that was held from October 8 through November 1 in The Year of our LORD 451 was NOT to prove the Jesus was a real person but to prove that he has risen from the dead and was GOD.
Followers of the Council believe its most important achievement was to issue the Chalcedonian Definition, stating that Jesus is "perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man."[2] The council's judgments and definitions regarding the divine marked a significant turning point in the Christological debates.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Mystical? Are we overlooking the historical evidence for the man Jesus Christ -- such as from the secular historians and even the secular critics of that era?
Jesus May have existed. But you also believe in magic?
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Mystical? Are we overlooking the historical evidence for the man Jesus Christ -- such as from the secular historians and even the secular critics of that era?
Jesus May have existed. But you also believe in magic?
There is more manuscript evidence and testimony to the existence of Jesus than there is for any other ancient man. If His existence is tenuous, then so is every other man of ancient history. I'm not sure what you mean by magic or how it relates to the topic at hand, but some of the critics of that time ascribed Jesus' works to magic. Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Mystical? Are we overlooking the historical evidence for the man Jesus Christ -- such as from the secular historians and even the secular critics of that era?
Jesus May have existed. But you also believe in magic?
There is more manuscript evidence and testimony to the existence of Jesus than there is for any other ancient man. If His existence is tenuous, then so is every other man of ancient history. I'm not sure what you mean by magic or how it relates to the topic at hand, but some of the critics of that time ascribed Jesus' works to magic. Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
So you do believe in magic....jesus can walk on water, spread the sea, make wine out of water, rise from the dead (which BTW is a zombie) ....that kind of magic you believe in? Might as well believe harry potter is based on true life events.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Mystical? Are we overlooking the historical evidence for the man Jesus Christ -- such as from the secular historians and even the secular critics of that era?
Jesus May have existed. But you also believe in magic?
There is more manuscript evidence and testimony to the existence of Jesus than there is for any other ancient man. If His existence is tenuous, then so is every other man of ancient history. I'm not sure what you mean by magic or how it relates to the topic at hand, but some of the critics of that time ascribed Jesus' works to magic. Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
So you do believe in magic....jesus can walk on water, spread the sea, make wine out of water, rise from the dead (which BTW is a zombie) ....that kind of magic you believe in? Might as well believe harry potter is based on true life events.
In whatever view you take regarding the origin of the universe you are faced with scientific/mathematical statistical improbabilities. There had to be an uncaused first cause (from where and why and how). There needs to be cosmic fine tuning to support the anthropic principles of life (there are over 30 of them), and because life has biological irreducible complexity the most simple cell must come into existence with all it's necessary components. These three must all coexist as one for life to come forth. Each one of these is statistically improbable and the three together are a mathematical impossibility to even calculate statistically.
Math and science both require an outside engagement that is greater than the force and laws of nature as we know them today. This is what we call phenomena or miracles--where all the scientific evidence and mathematical probability says something greater than the normal laws of science are at work. If God can be this agent once, He certainly can be again and again as He chooses. To deny this is to deny the evidence of both science and math. Therefore it is unscientifc to reject the evidence of science when it points to the evidence of miracles. Miracles are divine interventions with credible witnesses. Magic can be anything from occult practices to superstition but it is distinctly different from a divine miracle in its origin and application.
What's that saying about judging others or your gonna get judged yourself...
I call it warning and passing along valid information. I don’t consider that judging. Just passing along what has taken many years to learn through failure, sin, guilt, chastisement from God, prayer, & studying/reading His Word.
Which holy bible Jahrs???? Cause the christain religons that use the others think your gonna burn if ya dont turn.
Please dont enlighten me with your personal belief in my salvation based on your desire to spread the word as you believe it. If I wanted that I would go to St Micheals Cathoilc Church here in Clarksville and listen to the priest tell me the "correct words of God" out of the half a dozen or so of bibles that have been approved by the vatican.
[/quote]Which holy bible Jahrs???? Cause the christain religons that use the others think your gonna burn if ya dont turn.
Please dont enlighten me with your personal belief in my salvation based on your desire to spread the word as you believe it. If I wanted that I would go to St Micheals Cathoilc Church here in Clarksville and listen to the priest tell me the "correct words of God" out of the half a dozen or so of bibles that have been approved by the vatican.[quote]
May I suggest starting with the one book that was recorded with the advent of alphabetic language and which has been in continuous usage ever since -- a book which borrows from no other religious book? May I suggest reviewing its prophecies, and then seeing if there is any other religious book which even comes close to approaching that volume of fulfilled prophecy? The magnitude of prophetic fulfillment alone will separate it from every other religious book in this world. How about archaeological confirmations of history that were lost to the whole world for centuries except for the Biblical narratives? How about comparing it's message of grace, mercy, and forgiveness of sins--the ability to start over right now with your life and know that God will accept you through Jesus even if you can't live long enough to outweigh your evil deeds with good ones? Consider hearing people's testimonies of lives that were changed from bondage and vice to unselfish service. This is what Jesus has done for many and what He will do for you ... if you desire it.
the "true Church," in spite of it's failures, has modeled Christ in serving and helping others with no benefit to themselves.
Can you define your definition of "true Church". Just for clarification I am a believer in both God and Jesus, but I am also a believer in the fact that you can dress an Ape up in a tuxedo, but it is still an Ape. I do not know of many Non-501C3 churches in this country and those that are have taken a bribe for benefit and for no other reason. They, in full knowledge gives the Gov. the right to head the church and censor what they want censored. Therefore I am curious what church you are calling the "true church" and is modeling Christ. I don't see many of them targeting the money lenders along with some other "affairs of state". As I've said, I am curious and hoping there is such in this country besides those who are worshiping and doing His will in secret.
The true church of Christ is "One" and is not defined by denominational boundaries, but yet it exists in every local body that is comprised of blood washed sinners saved by grace and who are following the teachings of Christ and His apostles. This is the testimony of the Scriptures on this point. John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. Rev.12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Ok, You answered in part what I asked and I thank you, but something says you are holding back some and that is ok, too.
A sobering concept about the will of man is that God gives everyone the ability to choose to reject both Himself and His Word, yet His sovereignty is not threatened by those rejections.
So you do believe in magic....jesus can walk on water, spread the sea, make wine out of water, rise from the dead (which BTW is a zombie) ....that kind of magic you believe in? Might as well believe harry potter is based on true life events.
Yes. Mystical means supernatural, above nature, unconstrained by physical laws. God is certainly all that. As the creator of physical existence, physical laws, he cannot be constrained by those laws. That would be irrational.
When I was a kid I got pretty fed up with some of the toxic stuff I saw going on among "Church members".... Fortunately for me I had gotten my self kind of adopted by a family that knew things were not smooth at home for me.... I was always welcome to hang out while waiting for things to cool down at home.
I never felt any pressure to attend Church but did get a chance to visit with some good people one of whom suggested I might like a C S Lewis book, The Screwtape Letters. It's a satire written as a correspondence between a head demon and his minion assigned to keep a human "patient" from Salvation and when that fails to rob him of as much joy and contentment as possible.
It was a kind of paradigm shift in my view of religion. The presence of posers and clearly unrepentant jerks inside a Church were no longer an instant deal breaker I'm out of here kind of situation. The basic 10 Commandments stopped seeming like an annoying device to keep me from having fun but rather guideline to keep me from being consumed by a wicked predator…. I don't see myself a prey or food for the darker forces.
I found an annotated version free online here..... I first read this 45 years ago.... I still think about it fairly often.....
Storyline: A masterpiece of satire, this classic has entertained and enlightened readers the world over with its sly and ironic portrayal of human life from the vantage point of Screwtape, a senior tempter in the service of "Our Father Below." At once wildly comic, deadly serious, and strikingly original, C. S. Lewis gives us the correspondence of the worldly-wise old devil to his nephew Wormwood, a novice demon in charge of securing the damnation of an ordinary young man. The Screwtape Letters is the most engaging and humorous account of temptation—and triumph over it—ever written. Now, for the first time, The Screwtape Letters is presented with its full text alongside helpful annotations provided by Lewis enthusiast and dramatist Paul McCusker. The notes include literary, theological, and biographical information to enhance Lewis's core themes and demystify complex ideas. McCusker also guides readers to concepts and references from the beloved author's other treasured volumes to deepen and enrich this timeless classic. The annotated edition is the ultimate guide for understanding the heavenly truths buried in these epistles from below.
The Screwtape Letters
To J. R. R. TOLKIEN "The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn." - Luther
"The devill . . . the prowde spirite . . . cannot endure to be mocked." - Thomas More
PREFACE I HAVE no intention of explaining how the correspondence which I now offer to the public fell into my hands. There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight. The sort of script which is used in this book can be very easily obtained by anyone who has once learned the knack; but disposed or excitable people who might make a bad use of it shall not learn it from me.
Readers are advised to remember that the devil is a liar. Not everything that Screwtape says should be assumed to be true even from his own angle. I have made no attempt to identify any of the human beings mentioned in the letters; but I think it very unlikely that the portraits, say, of Fr. Spike or the patient's mother, are wholly just. There is wishful thinking in Hell as well as on Earth. In conclusion, I ought to add that no effort has been made to clear up the chronology of the letters. Number XVII appears to have been composed before rationing became serious; but in general the diabolical method of dating seems to bear no relation to terrestrial time and I have not attempted to reproduce it. The history of the European War, except in so far as it happens now and then to impinge upon the spiritual condition of one human being, was obviously of no interest to Screwtape. C. S. LEWIS MAGDALEN COLLEGE
What's that saying about judging others or your gonna get judged yourself...
I call it warning and passing along valid information. I don’t consider that judging. Just passing along what has taken many years to learn through failure, sin, guilt, chastisement from God, prayer, & studying/reading His Word.
Which holy bible Jahrs???? Cause the christain religons that use the others think your gonna burn if ya dont turn.
Please dont enlighten me with your personal belief in my salvation based on your desire to spread the word as you believe it. If I wanted that I would go to St Micheals Cathoilc Church here in Clarksville and listen to the priest tell me the "correct words of God" out of the half a dozen or so of bibles that have been approved by the vatican.
Any Holy Bible that you want to use as long as there are 66 boks in it. The variances between them, you will never even know what they are unless you begin to study if so you will have it figured out but I like the ESV, NASB, and the NKJ bibles myself.
Originally Posted by renegade50
Please dont enlighten me with your personal belief in my salvation based on your desire to spread the word as you believe it.
Thats as simple as not opening up the thread isn't it?
LOL! Yeah, be a good person, f@ck like an alley cat & kill the bastard if there's a pregnancy! LOL!
Atheists have killed more people than ALL religions combined throughout our entire history!
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Yes sir you are among the majority.
No. He's in the minority. More people believe in a God, than not.
More people believe in God than not? maybe, but my comment was about people being in the majority as long as they are good and it outweighs their bad. Also more people than not think Christians need a crutch, not at all. Your comment about more people belive in God than not has nothing to do with it.
Originally Posted by Dre
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Originally Posted by Dre
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Originally Posted by Dre
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Why? It's more fun to be a bad person. If there are no real consequences.
Lol. Well the Problem is, some of the nastiest people I know are also the most religious...But they go to church on Sunday and repent and it starts all over on Monday as all sins have been washed away and forgiven. We all know right from wrong and yet we still need a book to tell us what to do? Can’t wait to really find out what’s out there after we pass. And if there is a ‘god’ and he or she sends me to hell even though I was good person and giving me a free will to choose, then he’s a hypocrite and a dictator. Believe in me or you will burn!!
Do you base your opinion on what others do or do take responsibility and do what is right?
I base my opinion on what I have seen through out the years. I’m not saying all Christians are bad. But some of the bad ones are also the most religious.... it’s a joke. I’m just glad that some of you can admit in believing fairy tales and magic. Mind boggling, really.
....The Screwtape Letters. It's a satire written as a correspondence between a head demon and his minion assigned to keep a human "patient" from Salvation and when that fails to rob him of as much joy and contentment as possible.
I found an annotated version free online here..... I first read this 45 years ago.... I still think about it fairly often.....
Great book, even better website. I see the have Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and "The Problem of Pain". Both great works, but "The Problem of Pain" is especially good for those who rebel and are yet powerless to change their human condition. As an aside, Chritianity is one of the few religious philosophies that does not promise to eliminate suffering.
Any Holy Bible that you want to use as long as there are 66 boks in it.
I'm hoping you are not serious. What about the other 24 or so?
Even Google thinks that 66 is the correct answer, can you believe that?
I listed the ESV, NSAB and the New King James as my preference and you are surprised at my answer?
The 14 apocrypha books were not canonized in the same way as the 66 (Genesis thru Revelation) were and did not meet the criteria.
The Criteria being
1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? 2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? 3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? 4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives? 5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?
66 + 12 + 80
What are the other 12 or so books that you are stating to be Scripture?
Sorry Jahrs Not the good ole 73 book Vatican approved catholic bible. You beleive in what a English king wanted for a bible insted of the real words of god as sanctified from the vatican.
From what my branch of christianity belieives and instructs me to believe. You are basically in some form of the protestant cult.
Just saying.... Do you condemn Catholics like we have been told to do with other religons.
Catholics are after all.
The one true faith..... All others are false....
What are your feelings on that line of thought. I honestly dont think that way myself, but throwing it out their. But that is the mindset of many.
Turn or burn Catholic, or protestant and its kjv spinoffs.
Another classic my way or the highway sanctamonius religon thread.
So be good for at least 5 to 10 more pages.
You can go to St Michaels and buy some indulgences?
Ain't gonna give a penny to a church. God knows what's in your heart and mind. It dont cost nothing for that. And don't want a yearly round up sheet for it for IRS purposes either for compensation tax wise for believing in god ....
Well RG I don’t condem Catholics. I do think that the church is invisible, meaning there are Christians in most churches. I see a lot wrong with all of them, some more than others. Sort of like I see politics, I lean republican because of their stance on abortion, 2nd amendment etc but corrupt to be sure. Churches are and can be corrupt too and the way the Bible reads to me, I see more issues with the Catholic Church than say southern baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian but like I said they all have some issues IMO. Here is what I see about the Catholic Church: Confessing your sins to a priest rather than to GOD The church makes itself equal to scripture in authority. The church is the only interpreter of scripture The church can guarantees a womb to tomb salvation. The appeal is to the natural man because of the sacraments rather than a spiritual relationship with the creator
All of these go against what I’ve read in scripture.
I think the problem with Christians is that, like Christ, they aren't afraid to point out deplorable behavior. That never goes over well. The whole "go and sin no more" thing really pisses people off.
It always did me. I decided to leave the "no" out of it.
..Therefore it is unscientifc to reject the evidence of science when it points to the evidence of miracles. Miracles are divine interventions with credible witnesses. .
Can you list some credible witnesses to particular alleged divine interventions and miracles?
Who decides their credibility and by what measures/criteria?
Some sheep brain folk think that A genuine christian is someone who simply attends church. Thats how easily some are fooled by appearances. but is that on its own a real measure of whether one has actually received the Holy Spirit?
Then you get a whole bunch of sheep brains attending a church, and they all tell themselves that they are christians..(and even better Christians than the myriad of other christian groups).. ...Thats how easy mob illusion and delusion / self deception takes over people who want to start 'believing' or wishful thinking what suites them.
The ONLY one I am aware of who can genuinely and infallibly identify and credit a real Christian will be Christ at judgement time.
It is not a question of 'rejecting God' because no form of God has ever come forward openly and honestly. We only have those who are claimed to be the representatives of God, the prophets and the priests, to tell us what we should believe....
Who/What created god? After all nothing can just come into being without a "creator". there must be an even greater god out there. (I still have that bridge for sale)
Any Holy Bible that you want to use as long as there are 66 boks in it.
I'm hoping you are not serious. What about the other 24 or so?
Even Google thinks that 66 is the correct answer, can you believe that?
I listed the ESV, NSAB and the New King James as my preference and you are surprised at my answer?
The 14 apocrypha books were not canonized in the same way as the 66 (Genesis thru Revelation) were and did not meet the criteria.
The Criteria being
1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? 2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? 3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? 4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives? 5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?
66 + 12 + 80
What are the other 12 or so books that you are stating to be Scripture?
Since you linked from Google, I'll link from Wikipedia which lists the 24 or so books. Most of those books I have and have study them. The information in all of them is very important to have so that the Bible (alleged Word of God) flows more like a river instead of the hops and skips required to make it from one puddle to another. Your first listed criteria is interesting for a couple of reasons. Who says someone is a prophet of God? The writer? The reader? God? And if God, who says that God said they were? But to use your criteria as a test model, then not only was Enoch a prophet, but he never tasted the death and was taken up into Heaven on God's command. I think I would be most interested in reading Enoch's book if I was concerned about Christianity. The other 4 criteria listed are ludicrous and quite obviously coming from some "religion" teaching. If I was trying to lead a person to Jesus and certainly wouldn't use any of the those 5 questions as proof as none of them can be proven as true criteria. Let me suggest you read and study the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jasher, and the Gospel of Thomas, before believing any religious organizations criteria of what proves a book to be true and long before I would believe any thing [canonized] by any agenda driven man. As I said before, I am a believer or in most Catholicism perception minds, a Christian, but this believer is done with the milk and now only interested in the meat, so where's the beef, to borrow a phrase. I know who I am and who my King and my Knight are. I know what my inheritance is. As I have told many, when I was around 7 years old I was told that Jesus loved me, I believed it then and still do. I DO NOT need to be told that again. But my, that seems to be as far into the knowledge of God many can go, therefore it is no wonder God's people keep being defeated ie tricked so easily by Lucifer.
After talking to people for about 5 min. who/what Jesus is I've gotten more, even better response when I go into the story of Phineas and the Priesthood bestowed upon him and his ancestors and how his actions saved Israel. Or at other times I talk to them about Genesis 6 and who the Nephilim are both in the Bible and History. Then there's the story of King Joseph in Egypt and his challis/cup with the 12 stones around it or even the star map Benjamin used. Or maybe even the story of Judith and how she had more courage than the men of Israel and saved them the Syrians. These are just a few of the historical stories told both in the "canonized" version and the other books Lucifer didn't want placed in the Bible.
Who/What created god? After all nothing can just come into being without a "creator". there must be an even greater god out there. (I still have that bridge for sale)
Why's that? Maybe in our three plus one dimension universe that's the way it works, but the guy that made the universe cannot be constrained by it.
BTW, God always was, he didn't "come into existence." Don't try to apply the rules of your universe to outside of your universe.
We are getting off topic here with your concerns how about you start a new thread and I’ll make some reply’s.
I'll concede to stay off your thread, but I do not think it is getting off topic. It would appear to be going more than 2 questions deep. As you have shown the majority of the books are in the Old Testament, but because of the "new" age church teachings apathy is abound in house. I've heard it said many times that the problem with the US is they removed prayer from school and because of that our morals have deteriorated. It is true that they (whoever they is) have removed prayer from school, but morals have not dropped any more than before the removal, but what has changed is, there are to many pussy's in Christianity. The teachings/history of the old testament showed that men and women back then had balls and were not afraid to step to the bat. In modern today, no balls and anyone who some is demonized and chased off. So my point is this, if I was someone on the street and one of our new modern Christians came up to me and started the speel I so often hear lately concerning Jesus and Christianity I would walk away. Reading the debate between the so called non believers on here vs the believers makes me lend a hand to the nonbelievers. Trying to explain away why they should believe is laughable and hence my reasoning to bringing the teachings to life. All of History, Science, Mathematics, Biology, ect. are in the[ entire] collection of books, not just the portion man has decided is the truth. Seriously. Milk toast doesn't get it anymore. Wheres the beef. I will not be starting another thread of debate concerning Christianity and will refrain from commenting on this one. I used to be where you are in my beliefs, not anymore. I stand on what I believe.
When the senses Are shaken, and the soul is driven to madness, Who can stand? When the souls of the oppressed Fight in the troubled air that rages, Who can stand? When the whirlwind of fury comes from the Throne of God, when the frowns of his countenance Drive the nations together, Who can stand? When Sin claps his broad wings over the battle, And sails rejoicing in the flood of Death; When souls are torn to everlasting fire, And fiends of Hell rejoice upon the slain. O who can stand? O who hath caused this? O who can answer at the throne of God? The Kings and Nobles of the Land have done it! Hear it not, Heaven, thy "MINISTERS" have done it!
We are getting off topic here with your concerns how about you start a new thread and I’ll make some reply’s.
I'll concede to stay off your thread, but I do not think it is getting off topic. It would appear to be going more than 2 questions deep. As you have shown the majority of the books are in the Old Testament, but because of the "new" age church teachings apathy is abound in house. I've heard it said many times that the problem with the US is they removed prayer from school and because of that our morals have deteriorated. It is true that they (whoever they is) have removed prayer from school, but morals have not dropped any more than before the removal, but what has changed is, there are to many pussy's in Christianity. The teachings/history of the old testament showed that men and women back then had balls and were not afraid to step to the bat. In modern today, no balls and anyone who some is demonized and chased off. So my point is this, if I was someone on the street and one of our new modern Christians came up to me and started the speel I so often hear lately concerning Jesus and Christianity I would walk away. Reading the debate between the so called non believers on here vs the believers makes me lend a hand to the nonbelievers. Trying to explain away why they should believe is laughable and hence my reasoning to bringing the teachings to life. All of History, Science, Mathematics, Biology, ect. are in the[ entire] collection of books, not just the portion man has decided is the truth. Seriously. Milk toast doesn't get it anymore. Wheres the beef. I will not be starting another thread of debate concerning Christianity and will refrain from commenting on this one. I used to be where you are in my beliefs, not anymore. I stand on what I believe.
When the senses Are shaken, and the soul is driven to madness, Who can stand? When the souls of the oppressed Fight in the troubled air that rages, Who can stand? When the whirlwind of fury comes from the Throne of God, when the frowns of his countenance Drive the nations together, Who can stand? When Sin claps his broad wings over the battle, And sails rejoicing in the flood of Death; When souls are torn to everlasting fire, And fiends of Hell rejoice upon the slain. O who can stand? O who hath caused this? O who can answer at the throne of God? The Kings and Nobles of the Land have done it! Hear it not, Heaven, thy "MINISTERS" have done it!
A few of the books that you mentioned are quoted in the Old Testament like the book of Enoch and the book of Jasher but they were not canonized. The Jews did not recognize those books as scripture or they would be there. The Jewish Bible (The Tanach) Is exactly the same as the old testament of our Holy Bible today. The Masoretic & and the Septuagint (Hebrew & Greek text) are identical to the Tanach. The books of our OT Bible and their Bible maybe different in number but it’s all the same as far as text goes. Our OT lists the major profits or the minor profits (forget which) individually and they group them together to form one book. The Jews were the receivers of ALL scripture (Via the Holy Spirit) with the exception of Luke. I am not going to waste my time trying to figure out why they didn’t include some of those books that you are claiming but the Hebrews were the horses mouth. They were there! The book of Enoch was apparently lost in the flood according to Wikipedia and I’m sure it’s a fantastic book since he is a man who walked with God. Between the O T and the N T the meat therein will last you and I both a lifetime. I summit to you we’d never come to the end of that meat my brother! There is no need for me to search for Scripture elsewhere as I am perfectly satisfied with what’s there. The meat leads to sanctification and that’s where every one of those 66 books will lead you if you will follow them. They’ll transform a hardened heart into a heart of Love, Peace and Joy. The Old Testament points forward to Christ and the New Testament teaches us about Him. Jesus Christ is the Bread of Life.
A few of the books that you mentioned are quoted in the Old Testament like the book of Enoch and the book of Jasher but they were not canonized. The Jews did not recognize those books as scripture or they would be there. The Jewish Bible (The Tanach) Is exactly the same as the old testament of our Holy Bible today. The Masoretic & and the Septuagint (Hebrew & Greek text) are identical to the Tanach. The books of our OT Bible and their Bible maybe different in number but it’s all the same as far as text goes. Our OT lists the major profits or the minor profits (forget which) individually and they group them together to form one book. The Jews were the receivers of ALL scripture (Via the Holy Spirit) with the exception of Luke. I am not going to waste my time trying to figure out why they didn’t include some of those books that you are claiming but the Hebrews were the horses mouth. They were there! The book of Enoch was apparently lost in the flood according to Wikipedia and I’m sure it’s a fantastic book since he is a man who walked with God.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true. If one set of beliefs is true the others must logically be wrong, or all of them can be wrong, but everything that is believed to be true cannot be true no matter how sincere or adamant the believer.
I was agreeing with you that they are mentioned in scripture but that’s not the same as being equal with scripture. What exactly is your argument that all 90 are equal?
I was agreeing with you that they are mentioned in scripture but that’s not the same as being equal with scripture. What exactly is your argument that all 90 are equal?
I know I said I was not going to post anymore on this thread, but when you said
Quote
A few of the books that you mentioned are quoted in the Old Testament like the book of Enoch and the book of Jasher but they were not canonized.
, it pretty much says well a few then, 3 books maybe in just in the OT. Actually most of the "lost books" are mentioned in the Bible and The Book of Enoch is quoted not only by Jude, but by Jesus also.
Quote
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Mat 5:5) The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth. (Enoch 5:7 {6:9})
the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son (John 5:22). the principal part of the judgment was assigned to him, the Son of man. (Enoch 69:27 {68:39})
shall inherit everlasting life (Mat. 19:29) those who will inherit eternal life (Enoch 40:9 {40:9})
"Wo unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24) Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed. (Enoch 94:8 {93:7}).
Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mat. 19:28) I will place each of them on a throne of glory (Enoch 108:12 {105:26})
Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born. (Mat. 26:24) Where will the habitation of sinners be . . . who have rejected the Lord of spirits. It would have been better for them, had they never been born. (Enoch 38:2 {38:2})
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed. (Luke 16:26) by a chasm . . . [are] their souls are separated (Enoch 22: 9,11{22:10,12})
In my Father's house are many mansions (John 14:2) In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory, and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations. (Enoch 45:3 {45:3})
that ye may be called the children of light (John 12:36) the good from the generation of light (Enoch 108:11 {105: 25})
the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (John 4:14) all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy. (Enoch 48:1 {48:1})
Quote
Jude 1:14-15, quoting Enoch 1:9 {2:1} [1]
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, "To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
You say that all the "meat" you need is in the 66 books and no more is needed and I say that is a false teaching and one that comes from a 501C3 church where Jesus is no longer the head. The State is the head and the church can twist it any way they like but that fact still remains and if the State is the head then the body is NOT the body of Christ no more. How can that happen? By destroying the church and the body with lack of knowledge. The whole Book is needed to complete the picture that God painted just as a whole book of mathematics is needed. You start leaving out the small pieces of the picture the picture is no longer complete, then pretty soon bigger pieces are left out with sweet sounding propaganda stuff like "well they (and who is they really) didn't canonize those books. Once you can leave pieces of the picture out the picture looks strange, incomplete so now you can add your own pieces to make it "look" complete, but is it the true picture painted by God? And, here we have Jesus and the apostles quoting the Book of Enoch but the "church" says that book doesn't fit in our arrangement, no need to read it. Well ok fine, then those scriptures quoted from Enoch have no true meaning and eveyone needs to stop quoting them as though they came from Jesus. For instance, .........the Father judgeth no man, but hath commited all judgment unto the son....naw, toss that one out..................for every one that hath forsaken........shall inherit everlasting life................naw, not important toss it out too..............and on and on and on.
So the real question is this..............when the Head, Jesus, comes back for the body, the congregation, what congregation will he find? The one that cut off the head of Christ in leu of a bribe/tax exempt from the State or a body that forsook the love of money for truth and refused the 501C3 exemption? Oh, just so you know, under the Constitution the Church is already tax exempt, so falling for Lucifers 501C3 control form is a Satanic trap and renders the church to no effect. From my studies I find that if you forsake Christ as the head of the body, your prayers and rituals are cast away and He hears you not, so why is the church crying "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas."
And just to clarify, I am not calling the "The Church" bad, but I am calling the institutionalized church bad which there are more of them the there are noninstututionalized churches. It is no wonder there is only the Elect left.
For those who don't know, the so called unimportant Book of Enoch was written for ".........but not for this generation, but for a distant generation that will come. " So he wrote his unimportant book to a generation that would see.............."to which he blessed the chosen and righteous who must be present on the day of distress, which is appointed, for the removal of all the wicked and impious. " If this is the "last days" then it is this generation that Enoch wrote his book to. I find that very important and evidently so did Jude when he stated........"And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones" (Jude 14).
There seem to be a lot of questions as to why this-r-that is/isn't in the Bible. Here is a decent little video. Even better than the video is a small book called "Where We Got the Bible... Our Debt to the Catholic Church" by Graham.
I need to finish watching this Dre, but what I have seen so far has a lot of truth in it. For instance, ..........And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a "man" meet you, "bearing a pitcher of water"; follow him into the "house" where he entereth in.Luke 22:10 How many scriptures reference a "man" holding a pitcher of water? Only one. So here we have Aquarius referenced, but is this the only place in scripture? No.
I wonder how many here believe this nonsense about the sun being the Son of God proclaimed in Scripture. I realize DRE didn’t make any claims to it being truth but he was just asking my opinion.
There seem to be a lot of questions as to why this-r-that is/isn't in the Bible. Here is a decent little video. Even better than the video is a small book called "Where We Got the Bible... Our Debt to the Catholic Church" by Graham.
I was agreeing with you that they are mentioned in scripture but that’s not the same as being equal with scripture. What exactly is your argument that all 90 are equal?
I know I said I was not going to post anymore on this thread, but when you said
Quote
A few of the books that you mentioned are quoted in the Old Testament like the book of Enoch and the book of Jasher but they were not canonized.
, it pretty much says well a few then, 3 books maybe in just in the OT. Actually most of the "lost books" are mentioned in the Bible and The Book of Enoch is quoted not only by Jude, but by Jesus also.
Quote
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Mat 5:5) The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth. (Enoch 5:7 {6:9})
the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son (John 5:22). the principal part of the judgment was assigned to him, the Son of man. (Enoch 69:27 {68:39})
shall inherit everlasting life (Mat. 19:29) those who will inherit eternal life (Enoch 40:9 {40:9})
"Wo unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24) Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed. (Enoch 94:8 {93:7}).
Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mat. 19:28) I will place each of them on a throne of glory (Enoch 108:12 {105:26})
Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born. (Mat. 26:24) Where will the habitation of sinners be . . . who have rejected the Lord of spirits. It would have been better for them, had they never been born. (Enoch 38:2 {38:2})
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed. (Luke 16:26) by a chasm . . . [are] their souls are separated (Enoch 22: 9,11{22:10,12})
In my Father's house are many mansions (John 14:2) In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory, and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations. (Enoch 45:3 {45:3})
that ye may be called the children of light (John 12:36) the good from the generation of light (Enoch 108:11 {105: 25})
the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (John 4:14) all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy. (Enoch 48:1 {48:1})
Quote
Jude 1:14-15, quoting Enoch 1:9 {2:1} [1]
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, "To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
You say that all the "meat" you need is in the 66 books and no more is needed and I say that is a false teaching and one that comes from a 501C3 church where Jesus is no longer the head. The State is the head and the church can twist it any way they like but that fact still remains and if the State is the head then the body is NOT the body of Christ no more. How can that happen? By destroying the church and the body with lack of knowledge. The whole Book is needed to complete the picture that God painted just as a whole book of mathematics is needed. You start leaving out the small pieces of the picture the picture is no longer complete, then pretty soon bigger pieces are left out with sweet sounding propaganda stuff like "well they (and who is they really) didn't canonize those books. Once you can leave pieces of the picture out the picture looks strange, incomplete so now you can add your own pieces to make it "look" complete, but is it the true picture painted by God? And, here we have Jesus and the apostles quoting the Book of Enoch but the "church" says that book doesn't fit in our arrangement, no need to read it. Well ok fine, then those scriptures quoted from Enoch have no true meaning and eveyone needs to stop quoting them as though they came from Jesus. For instance, .........the Father judgeth no man, but hath commited all judgment unto the son....naw, toss that one out..................for every one that hath forsaken........shall inherit everlasting life................naw, not important toss it out too..............and on and on and on.
So the real question is this..............when the Head, Jesus, comes back for the body, the congregation, what congregation will he find? The one that cut off the head of Christ in leu of a bribe/tax exempt from the State or a body that forsook the love of money for truth and refused the 501C3 exemption? Oh, just so you know, under the Constitution the Church is already tax exempt, so falling for Lucifers 501C3 control form is a Satanic trap and renders the church to no effect. From my studies I find that if you forsake Christ as the head of the body, your prayers and rituals are cast away and He hears you not, so why is the church crying "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas."
Very simply answered--the Bible quotes non-canonical books as simply books. Paul quotes the poet Aratus in Acts 17 without intending to consider it Scripture. When the Bible quotes other Scriptures it typically refers to them as "it is written" "the Scripture says" "the Holy Ghost says" or uses the name of a "recognized prophet." It is illogical to assume that books should be included in the Bible that were never intended to be included nor were they recognized as Scripture by their contemporary audience. The inter-testamental books indicate there was no prophet in Israel at that time and the Jews considered those books by their own Jewish authors as a merely an uninspired record of history. Jesus affirms the Tanakh as the extent of the OT canon in Luke. He refers to the 3 divisions of and calls them all the Scriptures. In Matthew He gives a list of martyrs beginning with Abel and ending with Zechariah the son Barachias. Zechariah was not the last chronological martyr--rather he was the last martyr recorded in the last book of the Tanakh--2Chronicles.
What I have witnessed over and over again is that many times atheists and agnostics don't do their homework before they draw conclusions. It is akin to liberalism-simply equate it with enlightened thinking and no further intellectual honesty, critical thinking, or careful research needs to be employed.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true. If one set of beliefs is true the others must logically be wrong, or all of them can be wrong, but everything that is believed to be true cannot be true no matter how sincere or adamant the believer.
You are correct in that direct contradictions cannot both be true--which means all religions cannot be equally true nor can agnosticism and atheism.
Come on now if you’re going to quote me quote accurately
Where did I misquote you? And if I did I apologize.
Originally Posted by K22
You say that all the "meat" you need is in the 66 books and no more is needed
This is what I said below. I didn't say that no more was needed, i said we"d never get to the end or to the totality of the meat that is contained inside the Old and New testaments in two lifetimes put together. Thank you
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Between the O T and the N T the meat therein will last you and I both a lifetime. I summit to you we’d never come to the end of that meat my brother! There is no need for me to search for Scripture elsewhere as I am perfectly satisfied with what’s there.
What I hear you saying is that within the old and New Testaments, you are considering that to be milk only and you need to find the beef in those 24 other non-canonized books that you at stating to be scripture?
I was agreeing with you that they are mentioned in scripture but that’s not the same as being equal with scripture. What exactly is your argument that all 90 are equal?
I know I said I was not going to post anymore on this thread, but when you said
Quote
A few of the books that you mentioned are quoted in the Old Testament like the book of Enoch and the book of Jasher but they were not canonized.
, it pretty much says well a few then, 3 books maybe in just in the OT. Actually most of the "lost books" are mentioned in the Bible and The Book of Enoch is quoted not only by Jude, but by Jesus also.
Quote
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Mat 5:5) The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth. (Enoch 5:7 {6:9})
the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son (John 5:22). the principal part of the judgment was assigned to him, the Son of man. (Enoch 69:27 {68:39})
shall inherit everlasting life (Mat. 19:29) those who will inherit eternal life (Enoch 40:9 {40:9})
"Wo unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24) Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed. (Enoch 94:8 {93:7}).
Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mat. 19:28) I will place each of them on a throne of glory (Enoch 108:12 {105:26})
Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born. (Mat. 26:24) Where will the habitation of sinners be . . . who have rejected the Lord of spirits. It would have been better for them, had they never been born. (Enoch 38:2 {38:2})
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed. (Luke 16:26) by a chasm . . . [are] their souls are separated (Enoch 22: 9,11{22:10,12})
In my Father's house are many mansions (John 14:2) In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory, and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations. (Enoch 45:3 {45:3})
that ye may be called the children of light (John 12:36) the good from the generation of light (Enoch 108:11 {105: 25})
the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (John 4:14) all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy. (Enoch 48:1 {48:1})
Quote
Jude 1:14-15, quoting Enoch 1:9 {2:1} [1]
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, "To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
You say that all the "meat" you need is in the 66 books and no more is needed and I say that is a false teaching and one that comes from a 501C3 church where Jesus is no longer the head. The State is the head and the church can twist it any way they like but that fact still remains and if the State is the head then the body is NOT the body of Christ no more. How can that happen? By destroying the church and the body with lack of knowledge. The whole Book is needed to complete the picture that God painted just as a whole book of mathematics is needed. You start leaving out the small pieces of the picture the picture is no longer complete, then pretty soon bigger pieces are left out with sweet sounding propaganda stuff like "well they (and who is they really) didn't canonize those books. Once you can leave pieces of the picture out the picture looks strange, incomplete so now you can add your own pieces to make it "look" complete, but is it the true picture painted by God? And, here we have Jesus and the apostles quoting the Book of Enoch but the "church" says that book doesn't fit in our arrangement, no need to read it. Well ok fine, then those scriptures quoted from Enoch have no true meaning and eveyone needs to stop quoting them as though they came from Jesus. For instance, .........the Father judgeth no man, but hath commited all judgment unto the son....naw, toss that one out..................for every one that hath forsaken........shall inherit everlasting life................naw, not important toss it out too..............and on and on and on.
So the real question is this..............when the Head, Jesus, comes back for the body, the congregation, what congregation will he find? The one that cut off the head of Christ in leu of a bribe/tax exempt from the State or a body that forsook the love of money for truth and refused the 501C3 exemption? Oh, just so you know, under the Constitution the Church is already tax exempt, so falling for Lucifers 501C3 control form is a Satanic trap and renders the church to no effect. From my studies I find that if you forsake Christ as the head of the body, your prayers and rituals are cast away and He hears you not, so why is the church crying "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas."
Very simply answered--the Bible quotes non-canonical books as simply books. Paul quotes the poet Aratus in Acts 17 without intending to consider it Scripture. When the Bible quotes other Scriptures it typically refers to them as "it is written" "the Scripture says" "the Holy Ghost says" or uses the name of a "recognized prophet." It is illogical to assume that books should be included in the Bible that were never intended to be included nor were they recognized as Scripture by their contemporary audience. The inter-testamental books indicate there was no prophet in Israel at that time and the Jews considered those books by their own Jewish authors as a merely an uninspired record of history. Jesus affirms the Tanakh as the extent of the OT canon in Luke. He refers to the 3 divisions of and calls them all the Scriptures. In Matthew He gives a list of martyrs beginning with Abel and ending with Zechariah the son Barachias. Zechariah was not the last chronological martyr--rather he was the last martyr recorded in the last book of the Tanakh--2Chronicles.
What I have witnessed over and over again is that many times atheists and agnostics don't do their homework before they draw conclusions. It is akin to liberalism-simply equate it with enlightened thinking and no further intellectual honesty, critical thinking, or careful research needs to be employed.
What you are looks very much like a corporate institutional programming. Many of the early church fathers recognized that those books should be included with the 66 books. And Enoch was at the forefront. Is it not written in the book of ____ , would that not be the same as, it is written? Having Christ quote many scriptures from a book would or should be enough reason to research I would think.
Come on now if you’re going to quote me quote accurately
Where did I misquote you? And if I did I apologize.
Originally Posted by K22
You say that all the "meat" you need is in the 66 books and no more is needed
This is what I said below. I didn't say that no more was needed, i said we"d never get to the end or to the totality of the meat that is contained inside the Old and New testaments in two lifetimes put together. Thank you
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Between the O T and the N T the meat therein will last you and I both a lifetime. I summit to you we’d never come to the end of that meat my brother! There is no need for me to search for Scripture elsewhere as I am perfectly satisfied with what’s there.
It appears that I not only quoted you correct, but also your thoughts that the other books are not needed.
Quote
Any Holy Bible that you want to use as long as there are 66 boks in it.
Not 65 books or 105 books, but 66 books.
So here I am in a debate concerning books I have read and studied while those debating against me have not read nor studied them. That makes me a fool for debating and those debating against it not having read nor studied them foolish. This is going nowhere. I offer my blessings to you and hope you fair well.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true. If one set of beliefs is true the others must logically be wrong, or all of them can be wrong, but everything that is believed to be true cannot be true no matter how sincere or adamant the believer.
You are correct in that direct contradictions cannot both be true--which means all religions cannot be equally true nor can agnosticism and atheism.
Atheism is neither a fixed position or a belief. It is a lack of conviction or belief in the existence of a God or gods based on a lack of evidence to support a justified conviction in their existence.....nobody argues over the existence of the World, the sun, stars, moon, etc.....it is about justification through evidence. Evidence is not something that this or that Holy Book happens to say is true.
A few of the books that you mentioned are quoted in the Old Testament like the book of Enoch and the book of Jasher but they were not canonized.
, it pretty much says well a few then, 3 books maybe in just in the OT. Actually most of the "lost books" are mentioned in the Bible and The Book of Enoch is quoted not only by Jude, but by Jesus also..
Originally Posted by K22
Having Christ quote many scriptures from a book would or should be enough reason to research I would think.
Worth mention by Jesus , but not considered worthy of inclusion by church leaders.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true.
List your favorite three or four "contradictions in the bible," please.
Originally Posted by DBT
If one set of beliefs is true the others must logically be wrong, or all of them can be wrong, but everything that is believed to be true cannot be true no matter how sincere or adamant the believer.
Atheism is neither a fixed position or a belief. It is a lack of conviction or belief in the existence of a God or gods based on a lack of evidence to support a justified conviction in their existence.....nobody argues over the existence of the World, the sun, stars, moon, etc.....it is about justification through evidence. Evidence is not something that this or that Holy Book happens to say is true.
This is erroneous simply because you are making a bold generalization. For some it is definitely a fixed position due to their nearly unshakable beliefs. They believe in spite of available information.
[/quote]What you are looks very much like a corporate institutional programming. Many of the early church fathers recognized that those books should be included with the 66 books. And Enoch was at the forefront. Is it not written in the book of ____ , would that not be the same as, it is written? Having Christ quote many scriptures from a book would or should be enough reason to research I would think.[quote]
So if Enoch is at the forefront of your position, let's consider it: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
This is the one reference to Enoch's prophecies in the Bible. Now let's keep in mind that neither Enoch nor his contemporaries had alphabetic writing and so his prophecies would not have been recorded in a book that he wrote. This was an oral prophecy that was preserved by tradition among the Jews. The Jews never recognized a book of Enoch in their canon. Jude does not reference any "book of Enoch" but rather an oral tradition that recorded a prophecy of Enoch that was accurate. Moses wrote the first books of the Bible and included a narrative about Enoch but did not make any mention of a collection his prophecies or writings (hieroglyphics). Every early Bible character is recorded by Moses along with their sayings that became part of the Biblical record. What Jude is trying to establish is, not that Enoch's prophecies should be in the inspired canon, but rather just like Enoch foresaw the judgment of God coming upon the wicked--first in the flood and then at the end of the world, likewise Jude is also bearing witness to the same message. Jude is saying there is a consistent testimony from the advent of evil to the end of the age that wickedness will be ultimately judged by God. Jude is confirming the truth of Enoch's oral prophecy that was preserved.
Jesus confirmed the the extent of the OT canon of the Hebrew Tanakh, as I previously explained. Paul in Romans also indicates that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God. So the NT affirms the OT Jewish Tanakh as the OT canon as preserved by the Jews. The OT canon was settled before Jesus even came to earth. He said that every jot and tittle of it would be fulfilled--this is a clear reference to the Hebrew canon as the Greek alphabet does not have jots or tittles.
Next I want to note the Biblical principle that the truth of the Lord endures to all generations (Psa 100:5) The text of Enoch, though cited from throughout history has been lost to most of the Christian world for centuries at a time whereas the Biblical canon has always been preserved for every generation according to God's promise. The canonical books have never disappeared from human history.
Next I want to note that the Bible's quotation of Enoch's prophecy is not the same as the writings in the alleged book of Enoch.
Enoch 1:9 . . . Behold, he will arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him.
The Bible says to "execute judgment and convince/convict" ... the book of Enoch says "destroy" ... while the meaning is similar the wording is clearly different, indicating that Jude was quoting from an original prophecy and not the book of Enoch per se. In the NT quotes of the OT there is some variation also, but if the NT citation is not following the Hebrew text it is following the Greek Septuagint text. There are other significant differences such as where Jude says, “harsh things/hard speeches” but Enoch does not. Jude says, “spoken against” but Enoch says, “committed against him.” A comparison of the two passages from Greek texts reveal that the Greek text of Jude has 29 words but the text of the book of Enoch as translated by R. H. Charles has 36 words.
The Book of Enoch also fails the doctrinal truth test of Scripture: A major theme in 1 Enoch is sinful angels taking human wives (e.g., 1 Enoch 6:2, 7:1, 12:4, 106:14, etc.). This is in direct contradiction to the words of the Word, Jesus Christ, who in Matthew 22:29-30, Jesus said, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God…they neither marry nor are given in marriage…like the angels…” (see also Mark 12:24-25, Luke 20:34-36). The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are not fallen angles, because fallen angels are never referred to in Scripture as "sons of God" but rather demons.
Another consideration is that some of the observed narratives actually occur after the life of Enoch--meaning Enoch could not have been the author of those narratives. For example, Abraham did not write his own narratives in Genesis, but rather Moses did later as they were preserved by oral traditions. Therefore Enoch could not have been the author of this whole book which as a book was of much later origins than Enoch. Jude simply quotes a real saying of Enoch as originally prophesied and preserved by Jewish tradition and is not endorsing the book of Enoch.
Finally I will note, that although this book in some form was cited and and revered by some early Church writers, it was not included in any Jewish canon or any widely recognized Christian Bible. It is largely the Ethiopian church which have canonized this book on their own.
Atheism is neither a fixed position or a belief. It is a lack of conviction or belief in the existence of a God or gods based on a lack of evidence to support a justified conviction in their existence.....nobody argues over the existence of the World, the sun, stars, moon, etc.....it is about justification through evidence. Evidence is not something that this or that Holy Book happens to say is true.
So if it is not a fixed belief, then it also means that you are quite uncertain in your own lack of conviction ... or do you firmly believe in your doubts? But this would make it a fixed belief! If you are looking for evidence you would not look to your doubts and uncertainty, you would look to the facts, the truth, and the internal and external witnesses of it. The Bible has plenty of internal and external witnesses - but if you prefer uncertainty you will likely remain in atheism or agnosticism (which literally means without knowledge). Check out the meaning of the word "agnostic" in Latin--you might find it surprising, becuase in the end most atheists are also agnostics.
What you are looks very much like a corporate institutional programming. Many of the early church fathers recognized that those books should be included with the 66 books. And Enoch was at the forefront. Is it not written in the book of ____ , would that not be the same as, it is written? Having Christ quote many scriptures from a book would or should be enough reason to research I would think.
Quote
So if Enoch is at the forefront of your position, let's consider it: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
This is the one reference to Enoch's prophecies in the Bible. Now let's keep in mind that neither Enoch nor his contemporaries had alphabetic writing and so his prophecies would not have been recorded in a book that he wrote. This was an oral prophecy that was preserved by tradition among the Jews. The Jews never recognized a book of Enoch in their canon. Jude does not reference any "book of Enoch" but rather an oral tradition that recorded a prophecy of Enoch that was accurate. Moses wrote the first books of the Bible and included a narrative about Enoch but did not make any mention of a collection his prophecies or writings (hieroglyphics). Every early Bible character is recorded by Moses along with their sayings that became part of the Biblical record. What Jude is trying to establish is, not that Enoch's prophecies should be in the inspired canon, but rather just like Enoch foresaw the judgment of God coming upon the wicked--first in the flood and then at the end of the world, likewise Jude is also bearing witness to the same message. Jude is saying there is a consistent testimony from the advent of evil to the end of the age that wickedness will be ultimately judged by God. Jude is confirming the truth of Enoch's oral prophecy that was preserved.
Jesus confirmed the the extent of the OT canon of the Hebrew Tanakh, as I previously explained. Paul in Romans also indicates that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God. So the NT affirms the OT Jewish Tanakh as the OT canon as preserved by the Jews. The OT canon was settled before Jesus even came to earth. He said that every jot and tittle of it would be fulfilled--this is a clear reference to the Hebrew canon as the Greek alphabet does not have jots or tittles.
Next I want to note the Biblical principle that the truth of the Lord endures to all generations (Psa 100:5) The text of Enoch, though cited from throughout history has been lost to most of the Christian world for centuries at a time whereas the Biblical canon has always been preserved for every generation according to God's promise. The canonical books have never disappeared from human history.
Next I want to note that the Bible's quotation of Enoch's prophecy is not the same as the writings in the alleged book of Enoch.
Enoch 1:9 . . . Behold, he will arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him.
The Bible says to "execute judgment and convince/convict" ... the book of Enoch says "destroy" ... while the meaning is similar the wording is clearly different, indicating that Jude was quoting from an original prophecy and not the book of Enoch per se. In the NT quotes of the OT there is some variation also, but if the NT citation is not following the Hebrew text it is following the Greek Septuagint text. There are other significant differences such as where Jude says, “harsh things/hard speeches” but Enoch does not. Jude says, “spoken against” but Enoch says, “committed against him.” A comparison of the two passages from Greek texts reveal that the Greek text of Jude has 29 words but the text of the book of Enoch as translated by R. H. Charles has 36 words.
The Book of Enoch also fails the doctrinal truth test of Scripture: A major theme in 1 Enoch is sinful angels taking human wives (e.g., 1 Enoch 6:2, 7:1, 12:4, 106:14, etc.). This is in direct contradiction to the words of the Word, Jesus Christ, who in Matthew 22:29-30, Jesus said, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God…they neither marry nor are given in marriage…like the angels…” (see also Mark 12:24-25, Luke 20:34-36). The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are not fallen angles, because fallen angels are never referred to in Scripture as "sons of God" but rather demons.
Another consideration is that some of the observed narratives actually occur after the life of Enoch--meaning Enoch could not have been the author of those narratives. For example, Abraham did not write his own narratives in Genesis, but rather Moses did later as they were preserved by oral traditions. Therefore Enoch could not have been the author of this whole book which as a book was of much later origins than Enoch. Jude simply quotes a real saying of Enoch as originally prophesied and preserved by Jewish tradition and is not endorsing the book of Enoch.
Finally I will note, that although this book in some form was cited and and revered by some early Church writers, it was not included in any Jewish canon or any widely recognized Christian Bible. It is largely the Ethiopian church which have canonized this book on their own.
Having Christ quote many scriptures from a book would or should be enough reason to research I would think.
Quote
I'm not aware of numerous quotations from the Book of Enoch by Christ.
Didn't read what I posted nor have you read the Book.
As for the validity of the Jews and their book, which jews are you talking about? It was the Jews I did some research with that led me to Enoch in the first place. They were quite adamant in their belief of the Book of Enoch along with the others.
On the positive side I should make a few comments: 1. It seems as though a prophecy from Enoch was preserved by Jewish tradition which was cited by the Scriptures as the 7th man from Adam. It also seems apparent that some late BC Jewish writer/writers developed a book/books around some of the preserved prophecies of Enoch so that is is impossible now to determine which parts may have been original with Enoch and which parts are interpolations. However the author was recognized as Jewish by both Jews and the early Christians.
2. The book of Enoch, along with many other of the Greek Apocryphal books were a great source of Jewish history in the ancient world. The Jews were scattered in diaspora and these books were cherished as testimonies of their people who still lived in Palestine. Therefore some of these Books the Jews appended to their Septuagint translations of the OT.
3. Since these books were written by Jewish authors and they interpreted OT prophetic Scriptures in a way that anticipated the NT record, they were of great value to the early Christians as apologetic tools. For example the Septuagint said that Messiah would be born of a virgin illustrating His deity and the Book of Enoch says,
There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was; and why he accompanied the Ancient of days.
When they could quote Jewish writings to unbelieving Jews and show how their OT scriptures and other writings correctly identify Christ as deity--this leaves the Jews in a very awkward position to defend their unbelief. They had to invent new interpretations of OT passages in order to justify their rejection of the deity and Messianic role of Christ.
These were some of the reasons why "some" early Church leaders thought these books should be included in the canon. In the end the Church discerned what Christ had already revealed in His Gospel teachings, that the canon was already defined by the Tanakh. The Church merely agreed with Christ in this discernment. The extent of the NT Scriptures was never in any serious question.
Didn't read what I posted nor have you read the Book.
As for the validity of the Jews and their book, which jews are you talking about? It was the Jews I did some research with that led me to Enoch in the first place. They were quite adamant in their belief of the Book of Enoch along with the others.
Sir I did my own study first hand from the Book of Enoch and stand by my statements. Show me otherwise if you want to.
Knew nothing of the Book of Enoch so did a little research. Horny angels jumping human women sounds interesting. Particularly since angels not being native to our universe, having no physical presence, should be nonsexual. And them hungry giants!
What a lot of this comes down to is many skeptics are not fully cognizant of the salient facts of church history and the typical skeptical arguments that were already thoroughly answered in the first few centuries AD. Instead they Google websites of Skeptic's Bibles and arguments that largely illustrate the ignorance of their authors to both ancient church, world history, and Biblical texts within their context. Since most of the public has little interest in tedious research or having any moral restraints, they latch on to these canned arguments already made that sound convincing and use them to justify the course of action they have already chosen for their lives. Additionally the liberal college professors are very much in vogue to propagate these unfounded theories. Two examples are: 1. The council of Nicaea determined the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicaea as a item of business. 2. The virgin birth/deity of Christ was an invention of the later councils of the Nicene Church. The ante-Nicene Church prolifically wrote about this doctrine as a fundamental test of faith.
True enough, I did the minimum of research, but I have scads of biblical scholars and theologians to fall back on. But the angel and giant stuff stopped me cold. Not that other parts of the book may not be worthwhile.
Knew nothing of the Book of Enoch so did a little research. Horny angels jumping human women sounds interesting. Particularly since angels not being native to our universe, having no physical presence, should be nonsexual. And them hungry giants!
Here's an interesting story..........................
Genesis 6 King James Version (KJV) 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
and we certainly wouldn't want to forget about these..............................
Numbers 13:33 2 Samuel 21:20 Isaiah 26:14 Deuteronomy 3:11 Amos 2:9 Deuteronomy 2:10 2 Peter 2:4 Jude 1:6
Knew nothing of the Book of Enoch so did a little research. Horny angels jumping human women sounds interesting. Particularly since angels not being native to our universe, having no physical presence, should be nonsexual. And them hungry giants!
Here's an interesting story..........................
Genesis 6 King James Version (KJV) 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
and we certainly wouldn't want to forget about these..............................
Numbers 13:33 2 Samuel 21:20 Isaiah 26:14 Deuteronomy 3:11 Amos 2:9 Deuteronomy 2:10 2 Peter 2:4 Jude 1:6
it's all very exceedingly interesting on the face of it.
back in the day if the sons of god were in fact doing the daughters of men, if i was a son of man and there were beautiful daughters of god out and about surely i'd have a chance to cast a line? i mean, fair is fair, right?
but giants? a hybridization project that went awry? and god saved the most pure of the human genome in the form of noah & relationships?
it's kind of easy to ascertain that the early christian apologists wouldn't have wanted to bring in the enoch crowd of believers, but finally did consent to the various cults/monastery people of the desert to become affiliated with the mainstream church (catholic). they could remain orders, but couldn't breed, but alas at least a few did?
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
I suppose the above scripture doesn't count as "sons of God" having sex with humans. If not, what kind of exalting above God was Lucifer trying to do? Create trees maybe?
Remember the Book of Enoch was written after these books of the Bible so it is simply borrowing some concepts and then going off on a tangent. Further not one of these parallels are quoted by Christ as you mentioned earlier. And finally the Genesis account is not supporting the breeding of angels and humans. I already addressed that aspect.
Atheism is neither a fixed position or a belief. It is a lack of conviction or belief in the existence of a God or gods based on a lack of evidence to support a justified conviction in their existence.....nobody argues over the existence of the World, the sun, stars, moon, etc.....it is about justification through evidence. Evidence is not something that this or that Holy Book happens to say is true.
This is erroneous simply because you are making a bold generalization. For some it is definitely a fixed position due to their nearly unshakable beliefs. They believe in spite of available information.
I'm not talking about how this or that person may see it, but the definition itself. The word 'Atheist' means 'absence of belief in God' so whatever additives some may happen to include are extraneous.
That's why there are distinctions of 'weak atheist' 'strong atheist' - the latter being more an ideology than simply atheism as a lack of conviction, as the word/term defines.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
How did the translation end up as 'giants'..?...considering the orig. Hebrew word used was ~Nephilim~[literally meaning 'fallen ones']
but the Greek Septuagint rendered the said word as 'gigantes'
that greek choice of translation later adopted into the Latin Vulgate.
there are some 30 versions of English BIble that don't use the term giants, but rather the Hebrew; Nephilm ['fallen ones']
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
How did the translation end up as 'giants'..?...considering the orig. Hebrew word used was ~Nephilim~[literally meaning 'fallen ones']
but the Greek Septuagint rendered the said word as 'gigantes'
that greek choice of translation later adopted into the Latin Vulgate.
there are some 30 versions of English BIble that don't use the term giants, but rather the Hebrew; Nephilm ['fallen ones']
From Gills commentary
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days That is, in the days before the sons of God took the daughters of men for wives, in such a general manner as before declared, or before the declension and apostasy became so universal; even in the times of Jared, as the Arabic writers F14 understand it, who say that these giants were begotten on the daughters of Cain by the children of Seth, who went down from the mountain to them in the days of Jared, see ( Genesis 5:20 ) the word "Nephilim" comes from a word which signifies to fall; and these might be so called, either because they made their fear to fall upon men, or men, through fear, to fall before them, because of their height and strength; or rather because they fell and rushed on men with great violence, and oppressed them in a cruel and tyrannical manner; or, as some think, because they fell off and were apostates from the true religion, which is much better than to understand them of apostate angels, whom the Targum of Jonathan mentions by name, and calls them Schanchazai and Uziel, who fell from heaven, and were in the earth in those days: and also after that, which shows that the preceding clause respects giants in former times, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, came into their houses and chambers, and lay with them: and they bare [children] unto them, or giants unto them, as may be supplied from the former clause; for the sense is, as there were giants before this general defection, so there were at this time, when there was a mixture of the Cainites and Sethites; which were the offspring of the sons of God, or posterity of Seth, mixing with the daughters of men, or the posterity of Cain; for this is not to be understood after the flood, as Aben Ezra, Ben Melech; and so they are described in the following words, the same [became] mighty men; for tallness and strength, for power and dominion, for tyranny and oppression: which [were] of old: like those that were of old before; or who in after times were spoken of, as in the days of old: men of renown, or "of name" F15; whose names were often made mention of, both for their size and for their wickedness; they were much talked of, and extolled for their exploits, and even wicked ones: they were famous men, or rather infamous; for some men get a name in the world, not for their goodness, but for their greatness, and sometimes for their great wickedness; which sense is countenanced by what follows: that there were giants in these early times is confirmed by the testimony of many Heathen writers; such were the Titans that made war against Saturn, begotten by Ouranus, who were not only of bulky bodies, but of invincible strength, as Apollodorus F16 relates, and Berosus F17 speaks of a city about Lebanon, called Enos, which was a city of giants, who were men of vast bodies, and of great strength, inventors of arms and music, were cannibals, and exceedingly debauched
... see ( Genesis 5:20 ) the word "Nephilim" comes from a word which signifies to fall; and these might be so called, either because they made their fear to fall upon men, or men, through fear, to fall before them, because of their height and strength; or rather because they fell and rushed on men with great violence, and oppressed them in a cruel and tyrannical manner; ...
so 'Giants' in the same way Hitler or Stalin have been called "monsters' [or Ogre?] but to look at them or describe them physically , they would not appear like mythological childrens book monsters, hence more likely the bIblical giants were also not true enormous physical stature beings[ as in highly exaggerated childrens book giants]
but I have no doubt some child brain christians would buy into the idea of Greek mythology type giants. or 'Gigantes' being in the Bible....( .as I stated already , the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew 'Nephiim', uses the word 'gigantes')
Greek mythology; THE GIGANTES were a tribe of a hundred giants born of the earth-goddess Gaia. she was impregnated by the blood of the castrated sky-god Ouranos (Uranus).
At the urging of Gaia the Gigantes waged war on the gods and were destroyed in the ensuing battle. The most famous of the combatants were Enkelados (Enceladus) who was buried by Athena beneath Mount Etna, Polybotes who was crushed by an island cast by Poseidon, and Porphyrion who was slain by Zeus and Herakles when he attempted to violate the goddess Hera.
The Giants were depicted as either spear-wielding hoplite warriors in armor or primitives clothed in animal-skins and armed with rocks and flaming brands. In sculpture and mosaic art they were usually depicted with the tails of serpents in place of legs.
The Gigantes might have represented the primitive tribes of Thrake (Thrace), north of Greece, whose barbarian culture unfavorably contrasted with Greek civilisation. According to some, the Thrakians were born from the blood or ashes of the vanquished giants.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
How did the translation end up as 'giants'..?...considering the orig. Hebrew word used was ~Nephilim~[literally meaning 'fallen ones']
but the Greek Septuagint rendered the said word as 'gigantes'
that greek choice of translation later adopted into the Latin Vulgate.
there are some 30 versions of English BIble that don't use the term giants, but rather the Hebrew; Nephilm ['fallen ones']
From Gills commentary
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days That is, in the days before the sons of God took the daughters of men for wives, in such a general manner as before declared, or before the declension and apostasy became so universal; even in the times of Jared, as the Arabic writers F14 understand it, who say that these giants were begotten on the daughters of Cain by the children of Seth, who went down from the mountain to them in the days of Jared, see ( Genesis 5:20 ) the word "Nephilim" comes from a word which signifies to fall; and these might be so called, either because they made their fear to fall upon men, or men, through fear, to fall before them, because of their height and strength; or rather because they fell and rushed on men with great violence, and oppressed them in a cruel and tyrannical manner; or, as some think, because they fell off and were apostates from the true religion, which is much better than to understand them of apostate angels, whom the Targum of Jonathan mentions by name, and calls them Schanchazai and Uziel, who fell from heaven, and were in the earth in those days: and also after that, which shows that the preceding clause respects giants in former times, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, came into their houses and chambers, and lay with them: and they bare [children] unto them, or giants unto them, as may be supplied from the former clause; for the sense is, as there were giants before this general defection, so there were at this time, when there was a mixture of the Cainites and Sethites; which were the offspring of the sons of God, or posterity of Seth, mixing with the daughters of men, or the posterity of Cain; for this is not to be understood after the flood, as Aben Ezra, Ben Melech; and so they are described in the following words, the same [became] mighty men; for tallness and strength, for power and dominion, for tyranny and oppression: which [were] of old: like those that were of old before; or who in after times were spoken of, as in the days of old: men of renown, or "of name" F15; whose names were often made mention of, both for their size and for their wickedness; they were much talked of, and extolled for their exploits, and even wicked ones: they were famous men, or rather infamous; for some men get a name in the world, not for their goodness, but for their greatness, and sometimes for their great wickedness; which sense is countenanced by what follows: that there were giants in these early times is confirmed by the testimony of many Heathen writers; such were the Titans that made war against Saturn, begotten by Ouranus, who were not only of bulky bodies, but of invincible strength, as Apollodorus F16 relates, and Berosus F17 speaks of a city about Lebanon, called Enos, which was a city of giants, who were men of vast bodies, and of great strength, inventors of arms and music, were cannibals, and exceedingly debauched
This guy's opinion carries no more weight than any poster here giving their opinion. People believe what they want and then try to find support for it.
You all can stay in your state of denial and keep attempting to explain away everything that doesn't fit your particular doctrine. Me, I'm quite comfortable right where I'm at. Commentaries are nothing more than someones opinion and I notice that most of these commentaries and opinions are Vatican based. It appears that in your belief Lucifer and his band of merry angels are only guilty of wanting to be equal to or as God, nothing more. And just the thought of being that cast them out of Heaven. No actual deeds, just thoughts.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true.
List your favorite three or four "contradictions in the bible," please.
I don't want to get bogged down with multiple examples. There are websites that have whole lists of contradictions.
I'll give one example that deals with the nature of God as described in the bible. The stark contradiction between a cruel vindictive deity and a god of love;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8 Love is not jealous. - 1 Corinthians 13:4 God is jealous. - Exodus 20:5
Send Joel 20 bucks. He will pray for you. Send him 50 he will get word to God to forgive you. Cause he is Joel and Joel knows.......
So what if ya dont go to church. Some people dont need a snake oil salesman to tell em how to believe in a higher power....
Scheme since the dawn of time. For power, control, and money.
And which bible is correct and which christian spin off is the correct one. Hasn't man had influence in what goes into what bible version since the dawn of it all.... How can man arbitrarily decide what is gods word from documents written by other men.
What's that saying about judging others or your gonna get judged yourself.....
Rene, i thank you maybe oughta be sendin him aboit $500 ta git started.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Mystical? Are we overlooking the historical evidence for the man Jesus Christ -- such as from the secular historians and even the secular critics of that era?
Jesus May have existed. But you also believe in magic?
There is more manuscript evidence and testimony to the existence of Jesus than there is for any other ancient man. If His existence is tenuous, then so is every other man of ancient history. I'm not sure what you mean by magic or how it relates to the topic at hand, but some of the critics of that time ascribed Jesus' works to magic. Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
This is very true and I believe it works the same in all fields including religion. Maybe even more so in religion. I was slow to rise to the picture of truth the other books brought and in some cases much more detail was shown than in the canonized version we have. When they slowly and quietly began to change words, wording, and in some cases Book names in the scriptures, including the KJV version, it was then that I began to see......." As long as mankind does not go back to the original teachings of their religion, they will be deceived and divided."............to borrow a phrase.
In whatever view you take regarding the origin of the universe you are faced with scientific/mathematical statistical improbabilities. There had to be an uncaused first cause (from where and why and how). There needs to be cosmic fine tuning to support the anthropic principles of life (there are over 30 of them), and because life has biological irreducible complexity the most simple cell must come into existence with all it's necessary components. These three must all coexist as one for life to come forth. Each one of these is statistically improbable and the three together are a mathematical impossibility to even calculate statistically.
Math and science both require an outside engagement that is greater than the force and laws of nature as we know them today. This is what we call phenomena or miracles--where all the scientific evidence and mathematical probability says something greater than the normal laws of science are at work. If God can be this agent once, He certainly can be again and again as He chooses. To deny this is to deny the evidence of both science and math. Therefore it is unscientifc to reject the evidence of science when it points to the evidence of miracles. Miracles are divine interventions with credible witnesses. Magic can be anything from occult practices to superstition but it is distinctly different from a divine miracle in its origin and application.[/quote]
This^^^, however, this truth may be too deep for many to see, as is the truth concerning the man from Galalee. Many are limited to believing in only what they can touch, taste, see, smell or hear and would deny the existence of bacteria before the microscope invention.. Belief in God and Christ requires seeing with ones brain. Dogs and cats will never believe. Their brain justbisnt thst advanced. Sight is information processing in an illuminated environment. Seeing is understanding the here and now and i would add the future.
I base my opinion on what I have seen through out the years. I’m not saying all Christians are bad. But some of the bad ones are also the most religious.... it’s a joke. I’m just glad that some of you can admit in believing fairy tales and magic. Mind boggling, really.
I wonder what the blind base their opinions on. They have no sight, yet they can see.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
Quote
Romans 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Not everyone will get it, in fact there will be many that don't.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
I think you are missing the point I was making. The critics of Christianity in the days of the early Church did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, because there were too many witnesses. Because they rejected His deity, they ascribed his miracles to magic. The critics were essentially admitting that they had no way to dismiss those miracles as non-existent but they did not want to recognize them as proof of His deity--so they said He practiced magic.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the ultimate proof that His deeds were not sleight of hand, illusory, or occultic. Jesus was clearly a man of history as even the contemporary critics of the time admitted. They would not admit His deity so they called His works magic. However His resurrection was not so easy to dismiss so they came up with theories regarding that also. The contemporary historians record the crucifixion of Jesus but they cannot explain how the Romans lost His body. The only thing the enemies and critics needed to do was provide evidence that they had the body and that Jesus never arose.
The apostles all gave their lives for their story of the resurrection. They staked their whole message on the death and resurrection of Christ. The gospel accounts provided all the details so that it could be investigated. It was a public event that became known throughout the world.
A person can be deceived and be sincerely wrong, however it is very unlikely for people to give their lives for what they know to be a sham, because a deliberate deceiver is always governed by self interest. A deliberate deceiver will not propagate a sham when they have nothing to gain by it and everything to lose for promoting a lie. The apostles and the early Christians gave their lives for what they knew to be true and what they knew could not be credibly denied.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true.
List your favorite three or four "contradictions in the bible," please.
I don't want to get bogged down with multiple examples. There are websites that have whole lists of contradictions.
I'll give one example that deals with the nature of God as described in the bible. The stark contradiction between a cruel vindictive deity and a god of love;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8 Love is not jealous. - 1 Corinthians 13:4 God is jealous. - Exodus 20:5
So let's begin with what God describes as His character--God is love and God is jealous. Contextually how do we understand these attributes. God so loved the world He gave His only Son and in another passage He loved us while we were yet sinners. That is a picture of His unconditional love for sinful man. God is jealous--but in what way is God jealous? Jealousy needs defined because it presumes jealousy about something or over something and can be a positive or negative inference. In Ex. 20:5 He is jealous in the sense that He does accept the belief in pluralism--that you can believe in Him and serve Him and yet serve other pagan gods also. The belief systems are opposed to one another. To use a more contemporary example would be to ask the US government for permission to have dual citizenship with the USA and Japan during WWII. It's not going to be allowed by either government because they are at odds. In fact the request alone would place you under suspicion. Each government was jealous of their national security and citizenship privileges. God is saying I am jealous for my people and their knowledge of truth--it is impossible to serve both me and other gods who oppose me, therefore I forbid it.
The jealousy spoken of in 1Cor. 13:4 is envy--withholding love from those whom we resent for having more than we do. There is no contradiction between any of these verses. We can use the same word to mean radically different things. Dad is proud i.e. arrogant and haughty ... or dad is proud of me for having done my best.
This is a classic example of the alleged contradictions posed by the skeptics--the contradictions are only in their own minds because they want the contradictions to be there so they can dismiss the message of the Bible. Most of these examples are easily resolved with context, common sense, and an honest desire to know the truth.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true.
List your favorite three or four "contradictions in the bible," please.
I don't want to get bogged down with multiple examples. There are websites that have whole lists of contradictions.
I'll give one example that deals with the nature of God as described in the bible. The stark contradiction between a cruel vindictive deity and a god of love;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8 Love is not jealous. - 1 Corinthians 13:4 God is jealous. - Exodus 20:5
Here Bart demonstrates the contradictory nature of the NT Gospels and show's why Jesus is not so well attested to.
Just remember there is more evidence for the Bible than any other ancient book. When these people set up their criteria for evidence to exclude the Bible their arguments run too far because its dismisses every other source of ancient history. Proving too much simply proves the fallacies of your methodology.
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true.
List your favorite three or four "contradictions in the bible," please.
I don't want to get bogged down with multiple examples. There are websites that have whole lists of contradictions.
I'll give one example that deals with the nature of God as described in the bible. The stark contradiction between a cruel vindictive deity and a god of love;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8 Love is not jealous. - 1 Corinthians 13:4 God is jealous. - Exodus 20:5
Simple.... God personifies and shows love to us.....to even me.
God is not jealous....of any other.....
God is jealous..... He loves me and keeps me.... he will act to protect me from harm and will not let .... others.... satan.... harm me. I like it that way.
Just remember there is more evidence for the Bible than any other ancient book. When these people set up their criteria for evidence to exclude the Bible their arguments run too far because its dismisses every other source of ancient history. Proving too much simply proves the fallacies of your methodology.
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
F*ck religion. Constant killing in name of _____ over the centuries. Basically a Crutch for the weak that need something to believe in....Mystical being? Just be a good person and move on.
looks like you are the weak one.Cant talk without a filthy mouth.
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
You find Ehrman’s evidence insufficient.....? Lol...... Ok, you can be the judge, after all it is only you that you have to convince. Perhaps someday you will reconsider when you are confronted with conflict.
Who is this “religious follower who’s obligated to mindlessly believe.....?” Sounds like you. You are obligated to only believe the science.
There is an entire suite of reality, beings and experiences out there that you are seemingly unaware of.
But, by all means trundle on, keeping your eyes shut.
The Bible refers to those in this condition as “blind.”
So the real question is this..............when the Head, Jesus, comes back for the body, the congregation, what congregation will he find?
He will find Christians = Those who do the will of God, not those who just say they are Christians, big difference.
Mathew 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Who says someone is a prophet of God? The writer? The reader? God? And if God, who says that God said they were? But to use your criteria as a test model, then not only was Enoch a prophet, but he never tasted the death and was taken up into Heaven on God's command. I think I would be most interested in reading Enoch's book if I was concerned about Christianity.
A few verses referencing prophet criteria
2 Peter 1: 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [a]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Jeremiah 28:9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet.”
From my studies I find that if you forsake Christ as the head of the body, your prayers and rituals are cast away and He hears you not, so why is the church crying "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas."
His death had to take place. I don’t believe that they were considered “the Church” at that time. A few prophecies that were proclaimed and fulfilled concerning Jesus Christ
• Bible Prophecy: Isaiah 53:3 says, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." • Fulfillment: John 1:10-11 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him
• Bible Prophecy: Psalm 41:9 says, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me." • Fulfillment: Mark 14:10 says, "Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them."
• Bible Prophecy: Zechariah 11:12 says, "I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver." • Fulfillment: Matthew 26:14-16 says, "Then one of the Twelve - the one called Judas Iscariot - went to the chief priests and asked, 'What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?' So they counted out for him thirty silver coins."
• Bible Prophecy: Isaiah 53:7 says, "He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth." • Fulfillment: Mark 15:5 says, "But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed."
• Bible Prophecy: Psalm 22:1-2 says, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent." • Fulfillment: Matthew 27:46 says, "About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' - which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"
• Bible Prophecy: Psalm 22:7-8 says, "All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 'He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.'" • Fulfillment: Matthew 27:41-44 says, "In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 'He saved others,' they said, 'but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, I am the Son of God.' In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him."
• Bible Prophecy: Psalm 22:15 says, "My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death." • Fulfillment: Matthew 27:48 says, "Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink." • Bible Prophecy: Psalm 22:17-18 says, "I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." • Fulfillment: John 19:23 says, "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom."
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
You find Ehrman’s evidence insufficient.....? Lol...... Ok, you can be the judge, after all it is only you that you have to convince. Perhaps someday you will reconsider when you are confronted with conflict.
Who is this “religious follower who’s obligated to mindlessly believe.....?” Sounds like you. You are obligated to only believe the science.
There is an entire suite of reality, beings and experiences out there that you are seemingly unaware of.
But, by all means trundle on, keeping your eyes shut.
The Bible refers to those in this condition as “blind.”
Why would you presume I've never been confronted with conflict?
I've faced my fair share and see no benefit in confronting conflict through a distorted lens of reality.
As for what I'm "obligated" to believe, as a skeptic, unlike the religious, I'm not "obligated" to believe anything until I find the evidence is sufficient to support a given belief.
When scientist initially make claims about the existence of what we label Dark Matter, it was probably 10 years before I found the evidence sufficient to support the claim it existed. Theologians have had a couple thousand years, and yet, they still can't come up with anything as convincing as the lensing effect of dark matter.
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
What's more honest. Make up an answer, or just admit that you don't know?
To admit that one does not know is more honest and that is ok.
It is faith, either you believe or do not believe.....it is a fifty fifty chance......the toss of a coin, either Heads or either Tails....Heads= peace, love, happiness forever....Tails= nothing, lights out, thats it, nada....
For me, I do not want to be shocked when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave...if you were a Tails believer, lights out, nothing, nada....but when you die see that there really is something and you were a Heads believer, then WOW...
I think you are missing the point I was making. The critics of Christianity in the days of the early Church did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, because there were too many witnesses...
Famous magicians still draw large audiences that 'witness' objects appearing and disappearing, miracle like.
some even think great magicians have sold their soul to the devil to gain the ability to do what they believe are wonderous awe inspiring supernatural acts or demomstrations.
then others with adopted religious beliefs will think a person can get such supernatural powers from a God.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the ultimate proof that His deeds were not sleight of hand, illusory, or occultic. .
Christians for millennia have ultimately relied on FAITH that He has risen , not proof.
Evidence or proof based beliefs don't require such faith , or do they?
When it comes to right before ones very eyes miracles or magic shows, People can claim to witness things and simply be fooled into believing something happened that didn't actually happen...but they will swear it did. now if that aint credulous enough ....many folks today [without actually witnessing] totally believe in miracles /or magic shows from 2000+ yrs ago and they remain totally convinced that it happened precisely the way they have been told it happened.
In other words,.. they are putting blind faith in the long strung-out contorted word of mouth subjective beliefs shared from one anonymous [non-witnessing] believer to another....and they take it all to be the indisputable Gospel Truth.
What's more honest. Make up an answer, or just admit that you don't know?
To admit that one does not know is more honest and that is ok.
It is faith, either you believe or do not believe.....it is a fifty fifty chance......the toss of a coin, either Heads or either Tails....Heads= peace, love, happiness forever....Tails= nothing, lights out, thats it, nada....
For me, I do not want to be shocked when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave...if you were a Tails believer, lights out, nothing, nada....but when you die see that there really is something and you were a Heads believer, then WOW...
Raspy,
What you're describing is know as Pascal's Wager.
There's a few problems with it. Just because there exists two possibilities, that doesn't mean they are equally weighted. Every time you drive to work, you can either get in an accident, or not get in an accident. If there were equally weighted possibilities it would happen roughly every other day, but I'm sure that's not the case for you.
Additionally, there's way more than two believe systems. Heck most version of Christianity has all other Christians going to hell, and then there's the billions of Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhist etc.....
In the past I have brought up some of the scriptural indescrepencies he mentions, but IIRC, none of the cF Christians were able to dress them.
Of course not.
The best they ever manage was some Ad hominem against Eherman.
The Jesus of Mark, and the Jesus of John, are two completely different characters. They are so different as to be mutually exclusive, and cannot both represent the true nature of the same character.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true.
List your favorite three or four "contradictions in the bible," please.
I don't want to get bogged down with multiple examples. There are websites that have whole lists of contradictions.
I'll give one example that deals with the nature of God as described in the bible. The stark contradiction between a cruel vindictive deity and a god of love;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8 Love is not jealous. - 1 Corinthians 13:4 God is jealous. - Exodus 20:5
So let's begin with what God describes as His character--God is love and God is jealous. Contextually how do we understand these attributes. God so loved the world He gave His only Son and in another passage He loved us while we were yet sinners. That is a picture of His unconditional love for sinful man. God is jealous--but in what way is God jealous? Jealousy needs defined because it presumes jealousy about something or over something and can be a positive or negative inference.
This is a classic example of the alleged contradictions posed by the skeptics--the contradictions are only in their own minds because they want the contradictions to be there so they can dismiss the message of the Bible. Most of these examples are easily resolved with context, common sense, and an honest desire to know the truth.
Only if you ignore what is written and throw logic and reason out of the window.
The full context of this contradiction gives a definition of Love, what love entails, how love is expressed....which is in stark contrast to descriptions of the same god behaving vindictively, killing for trivial reasons, ordering slaughter, condemnation of generations for the 'sins' of their forbears, etc.
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
As opposed to
Exodus 20:55 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes. (Proverbs 1:26)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
The two opposing sets of descriptions are clearly not compatible. They are irreconcilable.
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
[quote=Jahrs]Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
You can’t lump all Jews into that category. Wernt they all jews that were praying in the upper room? All of the initial Christians were Jews as well. And to question the truth of the proposition, as you say, made in Jesus’ name being dependent upon whether or not he existed would mean that the Bible, His Word, would be false.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true?
And with this question you are admitting that those propositions are true.
In the past I have brought up some of the scriptural indescrepencies he mentions, but IIRC, none of the cF Christians were able to dress them.
Of course not.
The best they ever manage was some Ad hominem against Eherman.
The Jesus of Mark, and the Jesus of John, are two completely different characters. They are so different as to be mutually exclusive, and cannot both represent the true nature of the same character.
State your case that they can’t be the same person.
Contradictions yes but errors no. None, never has been an error proven. It’s totally reliable historically, prophetically and what it claims are that have happened.
Contradictions because the accounts come from different perspectives and personalities of the writers. Errors no because all writers were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote.
I’m pretty sure that all condradictions have already been addressed by theologians and can be answered in a reasonable manner.
What about the prophecies that I listed above. How do you explain that. Written many many years beforehand and happened exactly to a T, as predicted. Convince me of how this could have happened.
I think you are missing the point I was making. The critics of Christianity in the days of the early Church did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, because there were too many witnesses...
Famous magicians still draw large audiences that 'witness' objects appearing and disappearing, miracle like.
some even think great magicians have sold their soul to the devil to gain the ability to do what they believe are wonderous awe inspiring supernatural acts or demomstrations.
then others with adopted religious beliefs will think a person can get such supernatural powers from a God.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the ultimate proof that His deeds were not sleight of hand, illusory, or occultic. .
Christians for millennia have ultimately relied on FAITH that He has risen , not proof.
Evidence or proof based beliefs don't require such faith , or do they?
When it comes to right before ones very eyes miracles or magic shows, People can claim to witness things and simply be fooled into believing something happened that didn't actually happen...but they will swear it did. now if that aint credulous enough ....many folks today [without actually witnessing] totally believe in miracles /or magic shows from 2000+ yrs ago and they remain totally convinced that it happened precisely the way they have been told it happened.
In other words,.. they are putting blind faith in the long strung-out contorted word of mouth subjective beliefs shared from one anonymous [non-witnessing] believer to another....and they take it all to be the indisputable Gospel Truth.
Good looking blue-eyed blond identical twins can make good money working for magicians.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true.
List your favorite three or four "contradictions in the bible," please.
I don't want to get bogged down with multiple examples. There are websites that have whole lists of contradictions.
I'll give one example that deals with the nature of God as described in the bible. The stark contradiction between a cruel vindictive deity and a god of love;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8 Love is not jealous. - 1 Corinthians 13:4 God is jealous. - Exodus 20:5
So let's begin with what God describes as His character--God is love and God is jealous. Contextually how do we understand these attributes. God so loved the world He gave His only Son and in another passage He loved us while we were yet sinners. That is a picture of His unconditional love for sinful man. God is jealous--but in what way is God jealous? Jealousy needs defined because it presumes jealousy about something or over something and can be a positive or negative inference.
This is a classic example of the alleged contradictions posed by the skeptics--the contradictions are only in their own minds because they want the contradictions to be there so they can dismiss the message of the Bible. Most of these examples are easily resolved with context, common sense, and an honest desire to know the truth.
Only if you ignore what is written and throw logic and reason out of the window.
The full context of this contradiction gives a definition of Love, what love entails, how love is expressed....which is in stark contrast to descriptions of the same god behaving vindictively, killing for trivial reasons, ordering slaughter, condemnation of generations for the 'sins' of their forbears, etc.
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
As opposed to
Exodus 20:55 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes. (Proverbs 1:26)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
The two opposing sets of descriptions are clearly not compatible. They are irreconcilable.
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
Studying those "noncanonized lost books" would answer these very questions for you DBT. Having not read nor studying them requires one to attempt to explain this away which I'm sure will not convince you of anything. It sure didn't me way back when and many women won't even go there with the standard explanation of, well you see, you don't understand God and how this all fits together for good, ect. ect, ect. blah, blah, blah. I look at those institutes and the commentators who legitimatize the myth that those books weren't canonized and only canonized books are legit because: blah, blah, blah , I view them as the Cabal and the talking heads of the news media.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
Who says someone is a prophet of God? The writer? The reader? God? And if God, who says that God said they were? But to use your criteria as a test model, then not only was Enoch a prophet, but he never tasted the death and was taken up into Heaven on God's command. I think I would be most interested in reading Enoch's book if I was concerned about Christianity.
A few verses referencing prophet criteria
2 Peter 1: 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [a]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Jeremiah 28:9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet.”
From my studies I find that if you forsake Christ as the head of the body, your prayers and rituals are cast away and He hears you not, so why is the church crying "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas."
His death had to take place. I don’t believe that they were considered “the Church” at that time. A few prophecies that were proclaimed and fulfilled concerning Jesus Christ
• Bible Prophecy: Isaiah 53:3 says, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." • Fulfillment: John 1:10-11 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him
• Bible Prophecy: Psalm 41:9 says, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me." • Fulfillment: Mark 14:10 says, "Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them."
• Bible Prophecy: Zechariah 11:12 says, "I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver." • Fulfillment: Matthew 26:14-16 says, "Then one of the Twelve - the one called Judas Iscariot - went to the chief priests and asked, 'What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?' So they counted out for him thirty silver coins."
• Bible Prophecy: Isaiah 53:7 says, "He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth." • Fulfillment: Mark 15:5 says, "But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed."
• Bible Prophecy: Psalm 22:1-2 says, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent." • Fulfillment: Matthew 27:46 says, "About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' - which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"
• Bible Prophecy: Psalm 22:7-8 says, "All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 'He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.'" • Fulfillment: Matthew 27:41-44 says, "In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 'He saved others,' they said, 'but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, I am the Son of God.' In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him."
• Bible Prophecy: Psalm 22:15 says, "My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death." • Fulfillment: Matthew 27:48 says, "Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink." • Bible Prophecy: Psalm 22:17-18 says, "I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." • Fulfillment: John 19:23 says, "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom."
Again, signing a 501c3 contract is taking a bribe or a gift of money. And what church stood up publicly against Roe vs Wade? Is innocent blood now being shed? 501c3 status is a gift, a bribe, and because of it the church was silent in Roe vs Wade and now innocent blood is being shed.
Ezekiel 22:12 King James Version (KJV) 12 In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God.
Exodus 23:8 King James Version (KJV) 8 And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
Deuteronomy 19:10 King James Version (KJV) 10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
Mark 7:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
1 Timothy 6:10 King James Version (KJV) 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Galatians 5:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV) 16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and HANDS THAT SHED INNOCENT BLOOD,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
2 Corinthians 6:17 King James Version (KJV) 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Revelation 18:4 King James Version (KJV) 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Deuteronomy 27:25 King James Version (KJV) 25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.
What's more honest. Make up an answer, or just admit that you don't know?
To admit that one does not know is more honest and that is ok.
It is faith, either you believe or do not believe.....it is a fifty fifty chance......the toss of a coin, either Heads or either Tails....Heads= peace, love, happiness forever....Tails= nothing, lights out, thats it, nada....
For me, I do not want to be shocked when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave...if you were a Tails believer, lights out, nothing, nada....but when you die and see that there really is something and you were a Heads believer, then WOW...
Raspy,
What you're describing is known as Pascal's Wager.
There's a few problems with it. Just because there exists two possibilities, that doesn't mean they are equally weighted. Every time you drive to work, you can either get in an accident, or not get in an accident. If there were equally weighted possibilities it would happen roughly every other day, but I'm sure that's not the case for you.
Yes, Pascal's Wager, ....it is a 50 50 chance that the coin will be either heads or tails...choice....One does not choose to get in an accident, sometimes it happens through no fault of your own...but if you think like Pascal, either there is, or either there is not a God and Heaven, the fifty fifty chance is my choice that there is a God and I'll strive to do all i can in order to go to Heaven.
Over the years i have been going back and forth about if at death, one chooses Tails, lights out, nothing there, nada, thats it....I think there may be a consequence to choosing Tails.....a black void, nothingness, or maybe flames of hell.
So the real question is this..............when the Head, Jesus, comes back for the body, the congregation, what congregation will he find?
He will find Christians = Those who do the will of God, not those who just say they are Christians, big difference.
Mathew 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
"Workers of lawlessness" sounds like a description of modern SJWs/Democrats/Libertines.
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
[quote=Jahrs]Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
You can’t lump all Jews into that category. Wernt they all jews that were praying in the upper room? All of the initial Christians were Jews as well. And to question the truth of the proposition, as you say, made in Jesus’ name being dependent upon whether or not he existed would mean that the Bible, His Word, would be false.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true?
And with this question you are admitting that those propositions are true.
I should of been more clear and asked if it would change the truth value of the precepts, or something of that nature. In other words, do the Christian claims regarding what's proper behavior and wisdom survive scrutiny with out the supernatural god claims. Can the Christian precepts stand on their own?
In the past I have brought up some of the scriptural indescrepencies he mentions, but IIRC, none of the cF Christians were able to dress them.
Of course not.
The best they ever manage was some Ad hominem against Eherman.
The Jesus of Mark, and the Jesus of John, are two completely different characters. They are so different as to be mutually exclusive, and cannot both represent the true nature of the same character.
State your case that they can’t be the same person.
Contradictions yes but errors no. None, never has been an error proven. It’s totally reliable historically, prophetically and what it claims are that have happened.
Contradictions because the accounts come from different perspectives and personalities of the writers. Errors no because all writers were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote.
I’m pretty sure that all condradictions have already been addressed by theologians and can be answered in a reasonable manner.
Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
Do you have independent secular verification of any of these so called prophecies from secular sources?
One of the most amusing things about so many fundamentalist Christians is how the use the Bible as verification for the Bible and don't understand the concept of circular reasoning.
What's more honest. Make up an answer, or just admit that you don't know?
To admit that one does not know is more honest and that is ok.
It is faith, either you believe or do not believe.....it is a fifty fifty chance......the toss of a coin, either Heads or either Tails....Heads= peace, love, happiness forever....Tails= nothing, lights out, thats it, nada....
For me, I do not want to be shocked when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave...if you were a Tails believer, lights out, nothing, nada....but when you die and see that there really is something and you were a Heads believer, then WOW...
Raspy,
What you're describing is known as Pascal's Wager.
There's a few problems with it. Just because there exists two possibilities, that doesn't mean they are equally weighted. Every time you drive to work, you can either get in an accident, or not get in an accident. If there were equally weighted possibilities it would happen roughly every other day, but I'm sure that's not the case for you.
Yes, Pascal's Wager, ....it is a 50 50 chance that the coin will be either heads or tails...choice....One does not choose to get in an accident, sometimes it happens through no fault of your own...but if you think like Pascal, either there is, or either there is not a God and Heaven, the fifty fifty chance is my choice that there is a God and I'll strive to do all i can in order to go to Heaven.
Over the years i have been going back and forth about if at death, one chooses Tails, lights out, nothing there, nada, thats it....I think there may be a consequence to choosing Tails.....a black void, nothingness, or maybe flames of hell.
I still don't understand how someone can just choose what they believe, like they are choosing which clothes to wear that day. To me, something is believable or it's not, and if its not, there is no longer a choice to be made as to whether or not I'll believe it. I've asked before but haven't received an answer,so I can only assume that some people must have the ability to absolutely believe whatever they want, even if its ridiculously far fetched, while others don't.
Who says someone is a prophet of God? The writer? The reader? God? And if God, who says that God said they were? But to use your criteria as a test model, then not only was Enoch a prophet, but he never tasted the death and was taken up into Heaven on God's command. I think I would be most interested in reading Enoch's book if I was concerned about Christianity.
A few verses referencing prophet criteria
2 Peter 1: 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [a]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Jeremiah 28:9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet.”
Yep! Those books sure fit under this.
I find it interesting that Jahrs quotes Second Peter, which is widely considered a later forgery and NOT written by Peter, even among those who biblical scholars who believe Peter existed.
What about the prophecies that I listed above. How do you explain that. Written many many years beforehand and happened exactly to a T, as predicted. Convince me of how this could have happened.
The problem I have with most prophecies, like the ones you posted, is they are typically very vague and don't really say anything specific, therefore easily applied to whatever event/person one wants to apply them to.
What's more honest. Make up an answer, or just admit that you don't know?
To admit that one does not know is more honest and that is ok.
It is faith, either you believe or do not believe.....it is a fifty fifty chance......the toss of a coin, either Heads or either Tails....Heads= peace, love, happiness forever....Tails= nothing, lights out, thats it, nada....
For me, I do not want to be shocked when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave...if you were a Tails believer, lights out, nothing, nada....but when you die and see that there really is something and you were a Heads believer, then WOW...
Raspy,
What you're describing is known as Pascal's Wager.
There's a few problems with it. Just because there exists two possibilities, that doesn't mean they are equally weighted. Every time you drive to work, you can either get in an accident, or not get in an accident. If there were equally weighted possibilities it would happen roughly every other day, but I'm sure that's not the case for you.
Yes, Pascal's Wager, ....it is a 50 50 chance that the coin will be either heads or tails...choice....One does not choose to get in an accident, sometimes it happens through no fault of your own...but if you think like Pascal, either there is, or either there is not a God and Heaven, the fifty fifty chance is my choice that there is a God and I'll strive to do all i can in order to go to Heaven.
Over the years i have been going back and forth about if at death, one chooses Tails, lights out, nothing there, nada, thats it....I think there may be a consequence to choosing Tails.....a black void, nothingness, or maybe flames of hell.
Within your paradigm, considering how Jesus states most people will go to Hell and suffer forever, a "lights out" outcome might be preferable.
Or, you would choose to act according to the best evidence available. You KNOW you are experiencing this life, and if you're hanging your hopes of heaven on Pascals Wager, you've effectively admitted you have insufficient evidence for real belief.
Why not live this life, the one you know you are experiencing to it's best and fullest?
Within your paradigm, considering how Jesus states most people will go to Hell and suffer forever, a "lights out" outcome might be preferable.
Or, you would choose to act according to the best evidence available. You KNOW you are experiencing this life, and if you're hanging your hopes of heaven on Pascals Wager, you've effectively admitted you have insufficient evidence for real belief.
Why not live this life, the one you know you are experiencing to it's best and fullest?
i would think that all (or the most) any of us can do, and achieve is to live up to our full potential as closely as we can. that is, we were all dealt a hand of cards so to speak. the best we can do is play our hand to the best of our ability. and that kind of assumes there's an in-built or underlying morality of sorts that comes with the human design.
to simplify, one can just allow chance, risk, randomness or god decide the outcome for us, thus freeing us from having to worry about minutiae.
Yes a crutch for the fortunate weak, Yes I said fortunate. When we are down the chances our hearts and ears will be open to hear gods plan for our lives. Often his plan makes no sense to us at the time. Yet over time many horrible things will make sense. Even the death and resurrection of Christ makes no sense at at the time as no one had an understanding of the possibility of Christ resurrection.
Yet today many of us are equally unprepared to understand the resurrection of christ. This is a gift from our Father that we are allowed to seek forgiveness that we do not deserve, Yet God is a forgiving God.
An Wonderfull opportunity has been offered for you, click on the link when you have time and embrace a Wonderfull journey and opportunity to be prepared to serve, Your choice to open your ears or simply reject what you do not understand. God loves us and is offering an opportunity.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
That's easy. Use a trick illusion to fulfill any prophecy you want. I mentioned identical twins. I watched a pretty blond from a camera in a helicopter in the air. She disappeared from the ground and showed up riding in the helicopter. Cool illusion.
What you're describing is known as Pascal's Wager.
There's a few problems with it. Just because there exists two possibilities, that doesn't mean they are equally weighted. Every time you drive to work, you can either get in an accident, or not get in an accident. If there were equally weighted possibilities it would happen roughly every other day, but I'm sure that's not the case for you.[/quote]
Yes, Pascal's Wager, ....it is a 50 50 chance that the coin will be either heads or tails...choice....One does not choose to get in an accident, sometimes it happens through no fault of your own...but if you think like Pascal, either there is, or either there is not a God and Heaven, the fifty fifty chance is my choice that there is a God and I'll strive to do all i can in order to go to Heaven.
Over the years i have been going back and forth about if at death, one chooses Tails, lights out, nothing there, nada, thats it....I think there may be a consequence to choosing Tails.....a black void, nothingness, or maybe flames of hell. [/quote]
I still don't understand how someone can just choose what they believe, like they are choosing which clothes to wear that day. To me, something is believable or it's not, and if its not, there is no longer a choice to be made as to whether or not I'll believe it. I've asked before but haven't received an answer,so I can only assume that some people must have the ability to absolutely believe whatever they want, even if its ridiculously far fetched, while others don't.[/quote] Seems you want proof....it is all about faith....simple, either you believe or don't...your choice.
Man lives by faith which is what he believes to be. This is not a religious phrase. If you string enough words together you can convince yourself others of anything. Everyone has their evidence. It is all faith. If you choose evolution thats fine. Collect all the so called evidence you need to satisfy yourself but it is still faith,what you choose to believe.You can choose to believe we came from spacemen.Thats fine but it is still faith.Man does not live by what he knows.He lives by faith. Chicken Little had his evidence remember a piece of the sky hit him in the head.You think you have truth but it is faith not truth.
In the past I have brought up some of the scriptural indescrepencies he mentions, but IIRC, none of the cF Christians were able to dress them.
Of course not.
The best they ever manage was some Ad hominem against Eherman.
The Jesus of Mark, and the Jesus of John, are two completely different characters. They are so different as to be mutually exclusive, and cannot both represent the true nature of the same character.
State your case that they can’t be the same person.
Contradictions yes but errors no. None, never has been an error proven. It’s totally reliable historically, prophetically and what it claims are that have happened.
Contradictions because the accounts come from different perspectives and personalities of the writers. Errors no because all writers were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote.
I’m pretty sure that all condradictions have already been addressed by theologians and can be answered in a reasonable manner.
Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.
Who says someone is a prophet of God? The writer? The reader? God? And if God, who says that God said they were? But to use your criteria as a test model, then not only was Enoch a prophet, but he never tasted the death and was taken up into Heaven on God's command. I think I would be most interested in reading Enoch's book if I was concerned about Christianity.
A few verses referencing prophet criteria
2 Peter 1: 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [a]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Jeremiah 28:9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet.”
Yep! Those books sure fit under this.
I find it interesting that Jahrs quotes Second Peter, which is widely considered a later forgery and NOT written by Peter, even among those who biblical scholars who believe Peter existed.
Yes, that is interesting. I will continue to do my "church" thing at home as we have for 20+ years. I may be accused of failing somewhere else by God, but it won't be because I physically and silently allowed innocent babies to be murdered in this country. That is just one of many issues we have addressed in the last 20+ years. It appears these wonderful churches many are so proud of have adapted the song: Silence is Golden.
None of the gospels referred to the crucifixion by a specific day but by referencing that day in relation to the Sabbath. Being that it was the Passover during the crucifiction, there was also the "High Holy Sabbath" during that week that High Holy Sabbath day may not have fallen exactly on the same day of the week as weekly sabbath day so there could have been 2 Sabbath days that week. Back to back perhaps.
There are too many contradictions in the bible and between religions for all of their claims and beliefs to be true.
List your favorite three or four "contradictions in the bible," please.
I don't want to get bogged down with multiple examples. There are websites that have whole lists of contradictions.
I'll give one example that deals with the nature of God as described in the bible. The stark contradiction between a cruel vindictive deity and a god of love;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8 Love is not jealous. - 1 Corinthians 13:4 God is jealous. - Exodus 20:5
So let's begin with what God describes as His character--God is love and God is jealous. Contextually how do we understand these attributes. God so loved the world He gave His only Son and in another passage He loved us while we were yet sinners. That is a picture of His unconditional love for sinful man. God is jealous--but in what way is God jealous? Jealousy needs defined because it presumes jealousy about something or over something and can be a positive or negative inference. In Ex. 20:5 He is jealous in the sense that He does accept the belief in pluralism--that you can believe in Him and serve Him and yet serve other pagan gods also. The belief systems are opposed to one another. To use a more contemporary example would be to ask the US government for permission to have dual citizenship with the USA and Japan during WWII. It's not going to be allowed by either government because they are at odds. In fact the request alone would place you under suspicion. Each government was jealous of their national security and citizenship privileges. God is saying I am jealous for my people and their knowledge of truth--it is impossible to serve both me and other gods who oppose me, therefore I forbid it.
The jealousy spoken of in 1Cor. 13:4 is envy--withholding love from those whom we resent for having more than we do. There is no contradiction between any of these verses. We can use the same word to mean radically different things. Dad is proud i.e. arrogant and haughty ... or dad is proud of me for having done my best.
This is a classic example of the alleged contradictions posed by the skeptics--the contradictions are only in their own minds because they want the contradictions to be there so they can dismiss the message of the Bible. Most of these examples are easily resolved with context, common sense, and an honest desire to know the truth.
Yep, I understand your stated question. Legit question. Let me me respond and also address the issue of “blind faith” without any basis.
First, God recognizes the honest seeker. If one seeks God honestly then God responds. It really is that simple. But, if one does not seek or demands that God present Himself on that man’s terms, God may not respond. God promises that the seeker will find. You can use a bible search app and find that.
There are times when God calls.... sometimes when one is in extraordinary or difficult circumstances.....or not......God can do as He chooses and He does treat us as individuals as we are all different. “One size does not fit all.”
Now, this idea that has posted previously that there is no proof of God.... or proof of “Jesus” is simply not true. God called me and perhaps He even laid it on my heart to seek, I’m not real sure..... but, I sought and God responded. He indeed made Himself real to me and there was and still is no doubt about that.
No, I am not crazy and not deluded.
I have posted this before and will do it again.... I was 29 years old.... our real estate agent became a friend and badgered me to go to his church..... he asked my wife and I to go many times and then one Sunday night.... when attendance would be light, we went. I actually expected to sneak in, go out and thereby fulfill this friend’s request to “go to church.” Anyway, I heard things that night that I had never heard before in my life. I had many questions and went out and bought a Bible.
Now, here’s the important part... one night, my wife had gone to bed and I was up reading about the crucifixion. Ok, I think I got it .... Jesus died on the cross for our sins.... the I got stuck there.... I considered that many people have died horrible and excruciating deaths and so why is Jesus’ death so different? Also, it seems there were untold millions of people that Jesus died for....
So, I’m pondering this and I swear something kinda tapped the back of my neck.... then the words exploded in my head.....”Dave, if you had been the only one, I would have died for you.”
I was astonished and even looked around the room. The point is God....God revealed Himself and proved Himself to me.
So, yes there is proof and no, my faith is not based on “unreality.”
[quote=TF49]So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
None are obligated to dodge going to Hell. He doesnt demand you do anything except die. Its His gift to you if you elect not to die. You are only obligated to do certain things if you want everlasting life. I can sure understand why He wouldnt want to twist yer arm.
Lot of folks down here think that theyre hot chitt and will learn they are cold turds.
I reckon He knew you before you were born and maybe didnt want you to believe, along with some others, which is why He made sure there was no proof His words in the Bible are true. Same could be said for some stiff necked Jews.
There is plenty of evidence, just not the proof you demand. Well, what you demand equates to less than a piss ants fart in a hurricane.
Yep, I understand your stated question. Legit question. Let me me respond and also address the issue of “blind faith” without any basis.
First, God recognizes the honest seeker. If one seeks God honestly then God responds. It really is that simple. But, if one does not seek or demands that God present Himself on that man’s terms, God may not respond. God promises that the seeker will find. You can use a bible search app and find that.
There are times when God calls.... sometimes when one is in extraordinary or difficult circumstances.....or not......God can do as He chooses and He does treat us as individuals as we are all different. “One size does not fit all.”
Now, this idea that has posted previously that there is no proof of God.... or proof of “Jesus” is simply not true. God called me and perhaps He even laid it on my heart to seek, I’m not real sure..... but, I sought and God responded. He indeed made Himself real to me and there was and still is no doubt about that.
No, I am not crazy and not deluded.
I have posted this before and will do it again.... I was 29 years old.... our real estate agent became a friend and badgered me to go to his church..... he asked my wife and I to go many times and then one Sunday night.... when attendance would be light, we went. I actually expected to sneak in, go out and thereby fulfill this friend’s request to “go to church.” Anyway, I heard things that night that I had never heard before in my life. I had many questions and went out and bought a Bible.
Now, here’s the important part... one night, my wife had gone to bed and I was up reading about the crucifixion. Ok, I think I got it .... Jesus died on the cross for our sins.... the I got stuck there.... I considered that many people have died horrible and excruciating deaths and so why is Jesus’ death so different? Also, it seems there were untold millions of people that Jesus died for....
So, I’m pondering this and I swear something kinda tapped the back of my neck.... then the words exploded in my head.....”Dave, if you had been the only one, I would have died for you.”
I was astonished and even looked around the room. The point is God....God revealed Himself and proved Himself to me.
So, yes there is proof and no, my faith is not based on “unreality.”
>>>Within your paradigm, considering how Jesus states most people will go to Hell and suffer forever, a "lights out" outcome might be preferable. <<<
Yes, you are probably correct.
>>>Or, you would choose to act according to the best evidence available. You KNOW you are experiencing this life, and if you're hanging your hopes of heaven on Pascals Wager, you've effectively admitted you have insufficient evidence for real belief.<<<
Yes, right again....I pray a lot that the “insufficient evidence” will turn to "sufficient evidence" soon, I hope and pray real soon.
Yep, I understand your stated question. Legit question. Let me me respond and also address the issue of “blind faith” without any basis.
First, God recognizes the honest seeker. If one seeks God honestly then God responds. It really is that simple. But, if one does not seek or demands that God present Himself on that man’s terms, God may not respond. God promises that the seeker will find. You can use a bible search app and find that.
There are times when God calls.... sometimes when one is in extraordinary or difficult circumstances.....or not......God can do as He chooses and He does treat us as individuals as we are all different. “One size does not fit all.”
Now, this idea that has posted previously that there is no proof of God.... or proof of “Jesus” is simply not true. God called me and perhaps He even laid it on my heart to seek, I’m not real sure..... but, I sought and God responded. He indeed made Himself real to me and there was and still is no doubt about that.
No, I am not crazy and not deluded.
I have posted this before and will do it again.... I was 29 years old.... our real estate agent became a friend and badgered me to go to his church..... he asked my wife and I to go many times and then one Sunday night.... when attendance would be light, we went. I actually expected to sneak in, go out and thereby fulfill this friend’s request to “go to church.” Anyway, I heard things that night that I had never heard before in my life. I had many questions and went out and bought a Bible.
Now, here’s the important part... one night, my wife had gone to bed and I was up reading about the crucifixion. Ok, I think I got it .... Jesus died on the cross for our sins.... the I got stuck there.... I considered that many people have died horrible and excruciating deaths and so why is Jesus’ death so different? Also, it seems there were untold millions of people that Jesus died for....
So, I’m pondering this and I swear something kinda tapped the back of my neck.... then the words exploded in my head.....”Dave, if you had been the only one, I would have died for you.”
I was astonished and even looked around the room. The point is God....God revealed Himself and proved Himself to me.
So, yes there is proof and no, my faith is not based on “unreality.”
Get a Bible and read the Book of John.........
TF49, thank you for your honest answer.
Great Testimony. One thing, he wanted to know the truth. He didnt want to find reasons to find God wrong or unjust and he didnt want to impress God that he was his own master.
[quote=TF49]So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
None are obligated to dodge going to Hell. He doesnt demand you do anything except die. Its His gift to you if you elect not to die. You are only obligated to do certain things if you want everlasting life. I can sure understand why He wouldnt want to twist yer arm.
Lot of folks down here think that theyre hot chitt and will learn they are cold turds.
I reckon He knew you before you were born and maybe didnt want you to believe, along with some others, which is why He made sure there was no proof His words in the Bible are true. Same could be said for some stiff necked Jews.
There is plenty of evidence, just not the proof you demand. Well, what you demand equates to less than a piss ants fart in a hurricane.
Think about what you just said.
Are you really claiming your god intentionally made me in a way that would justify his sending me to Hell?
what the diff between a reg. [vs] irregular christian? ..one has more fleece than the other?
Originally Posted by jaguartx
Did He ever say christians are obligated to answer anyones questions?
cHristians on the fire have no problem contributing their views/explanations on many christian subject discussions, but some are like a hot potatoe that they just won't touch, yet the questions are by no means trivial or invalid, in fact quite the contrary.
Ah, yes. The hard truth is that God does not allow sin into heaven.
The fantasy is that we can ignore the Creator, live without any regard to Him .... live in the fantasy that somehow that even if God does exist, somehow all will turn out ok for us.
[quote=TF49]So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
None are obligated to dodge going to Hell. He doesnt demand you do anything except die. Its His gift to you if you elect not to die. You are only obligated to do certain things if you want everlasting life. I can sure understand why He wouldnt want to twist yer arm.
Lot of folks down here think that theyre hot chitt and will learn they are cold turds.
I reckon He knew you before you were born and maybe didnt want you to believe, along with some others, which is why He made sure there was no proof His words in the Bible are true. Same could be said for some stiff necked Jews.
There is plenty of evidence, just not the proof you demand. Well, what you demand equates to less than a piss ants fart in a hurricane.
Think about what you just said.
Are you really claiming your god intentionally made me in a way that would justify his sending me to Hell?
Wow. What a nice god you have.
No. There are all kind of people on this world and He just knows whos gonna accept and whos gonna reject before hand and their name doesnt go into the book of life.
Esau He hated, before he was born. He knew Esau would convict Him with his mouth as He knew you would. You still get the chance to go to Heaven if you wanted that more than cursing Him. He even tells you in the Bible how to save youself. Didnt He make Pharaohs heart harden to Him? You think you are in control. You arent. He owns your hard heart and stiff neck lock, stock and barrel. Your the one who wants to go to Hell. He just knew you before you were born, and you prove every day He was right.
[quote=TF49]So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
None are obligated to dodge going to Hell. He doesnt demand you do anything except die. Its His gift to you if you elect not to die. You are only obligated to do certain things if you want everlasting life. I can sure understand why He wouldnt want to twist yer arm.
Lot of folks down here think that theyre hot chitt and will learn they are cold turds.
I reckon He knew you before you were born and maybe didnt want you to believe, along with some others, which is why He made sure there was no proof His words in the Bible are true. Same could be said for some stiff necked Jews.
There is plenty of evidence, just not the proof you demand. Well, what you demand equates to less than a piss ants fart in a hurricane.
Think about what you just said.
Are you really claiming your god intentionally made me in a way that would justify his sending me to Hell?
Wow. What a nice god you have.
No. There are all kind of people on this world and He just knows whos gonna accept and whos gonna reject before hand and their name doesnt go into the book of life.
Esau He hated, before he was born. He knew Esau would convict Him with his mouth as He knew you would. You still get the chance to go to Heaven if you wanted that more than cursing Him. He even tells you in the Bible how to save youself. Didnt He make Pharaohs heart harden to Him? You think you are in control. You arent. He owns your hard heart and stiff neck lock, stock and barrel. Your the one who wants to go to Hell. He just knew you before you were born, and you prove every day He was right.
[quote=TF49]So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
None are obligated to dodge going to Hell. He doesnt demand you do anything except die. Its His gift to you if you elect not to die. You are only obligated to do certain things if you want everlasting life. I can sure understand why He wouldnt want to twist yer arm.
Lot of folks down here think that theyre hot chitt and will learn they are cold turds.
I reckon He knew you before you were born and maybe didnt want you to believe, along with some others, which is why He made sure there was no proof His words in the Bible are true. Same could be said for some stiff necked Jews.
There is plenty of evidence, just not the proof you demand. Well, what you demand equates to less than a piss ants fart in a hurricane.
Think about what you just said.
Are you really claiming your god intentionally made me in a way that would justify his sending me to Hell?
Wow. What a nice god you have.
No. There are all kind of people on this world and He just knows whos gonna accept and whos gonna reject before hand and their name doesnt go into the book of life.
Esau He hated, before he was born. He knew Esau would convict Him with his mouth as He knew you would. You still get the chance to go to Heaven if you wanted that more than cursing Him. He even tells you in the Bible how to save youself. Didnt He make Pharaohs heart harden to Him? You think you are in control. You arent. He owns your hard heart and stiff neck lock, stock and barrel. Your the one who wants to go to Hell. He just knew you before you were born, and you prove every day He was right.
So much for the doctrine of Free Will.
You have free will unless its been taken by your puppet master Satan. Can you get down on your knees and accept Christ as savior and that you are a sinner and ask Christ into your heart to save your sorry hide and acdept that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and that He loved you and died to wash your sins away and that He arose on the 3rd day breaking the curse of death on you?
You prefer to curse Him rather than exercise your Free Will.
You are driven and directed by Satan and expect Christians to convince you of your error? You have the smart words and mouth. HE has the truth.
You have free will unless its been taken by your puppet master Satan. Can you get down on your knees and accept Christ as savior and that you are a sinner and ask Christ into your heart to save your sorry hide and acdept that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and that He loved you and died to wash your sins away and that He arose on the 3rd day breaking the curse of death on you?
You prefer to curse Him rather than exercise your Free Will.
You are driven and directed by Satan and expect Christians to convince you of your error? You have the smart words and mouth. HE has the truth.
If it was Gods will, did Judas ever have Free Will?
according to scripture, The Son of God was already given the role as the sacrificial lamb before the foundation of the world...Judas didn't know his choice was made well before he was ever born to make it.
Yes a crutch for the fortunate weak, Yes I said fortunate. When we are down the chances our hearts and ears will be open to hear gods plan for our lives. Often his plan makes no sense to us at the time. Yet over time many horrible things will make sense. Even the death and resurrection of Christ makes no sense at at the time as no one had an understanding of the possibility of Christ resurrection.
Yet today many of us are equally unprepared to understand the resurrection of christ. This is a gift from our Father that we are allowed to seek forgiveness that we do not deserve, Yet God is a forgiving God.
An Wonderfull opportunity has been offered for you, click on the link when you have time and embrace a Wonderfull journey and opportunity to be prepared to serve, Your choice to open your ears or simply reject what you do not understand. God loves us and is offering an opportunity.
From me to Jahrs, Thank you for sharing.
You are welcome my brother. Thank you for the kind words.
Matthew 22:14 .“For many are called, but few are chosen”
Yes and those who come will in no wise be cast out. ..
Matthew 22:
8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.
13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are called(invited), but few are chosen.”
Originally Posted by TF49
My view? Yes, he knew what he was doing and fully responsible for his actions.
For those who are truly interested I this, see.....
In the past I have brought up some of the scriptural indescrepencies he mentions, but IIRC, none of the cF Christians were able to dress them.
Of course not.
The best they ever manage was some Ad hominem against Eherman.
The Jesus of Mark, and the Jesus of John, are two completely different characters. They are so different as to be mutually exclusive, and cannot both represent the true nature of the same character.
State your case that they can’t be the same person.
Contradictions yes but errors no. None, never has been an error proven. It’s totally reliable historically, prophetically and what it claims are that have happened.
Contradictions because the accounts come from different perspectives and personalities of the writers. Errors no because all writers were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote.
I’m pretty sure that all condradictions have already been addressed by theologians and can be answered in a reasonable manner.
Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.
In case you missed my reply earlier.
Originally Posted by Jahrs
None of the gospels referred to the crucifixion by a specific day but by referencing that day in relation to the Sabbath. Being that it was the Passover during the crucifiction, there was also the "High Holy Sabbath" during that week that High Holy Sabbath day may not have fallen exactly on the same day of the week as weekly sabbath day so there could have been 2 Sabbath days that week. Back to back perhaps.
Who says someone is a prophet of God? The writer? The reader? God? And if God, who says that God said they were? But to use your criteria as a test model, then not only was Enoch a prophet, but he never tasted the death and was taken up into Heaven on God's command. I think I would be most interested in reading Enoch's book if I was concerned about Christianity.
A few verses referencing prophet criteria
2 Peter 1: 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [a]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Jeremiah 28:9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet.”
Yep! Those books sure fit under this.
I find it interesting that Jahrs quotes Second Peter, which is widely considered a later forgery and NOT written by Peter, even among those who biblical scholars who believe Peter existed.
Ive actually never heard this before but yes it is very interesting. Peter answers the false teachers and has much to say about them in his 2nd book, so I am not surprised at the attempt to discredit.
If it was Gods will, did Judas ever have Free Will?
according to scripture, The Son of God was already given the role as the sacrificial lamb before the foundation of the world...Judas didn't know his choice was made well before he was ever born to make it.
And the very earliest mention of the Son of God/Son of Man was in the Book of Enoch. imagine that.
The term 'free will' is too simplistic. It tells us nothing about human behaviour or the decision making process.
We are what we are through a complex interaction of genetic makeup, life experiences, social and cultural conditions, sets of likes and dislikes developed over time, and it is from this foundation that convictions are formed and decisions are made.
Put simply, if you are not convinced that something is true you cannot just decide through act act of will that you are convinced that it is true.
Free will is just an excuse used by some when comes to matters of faith. Pascals Wager also fails for many reasons.
We can learn new things and accept or reject what we learn as we choose and thereby select our path, for better or worse.
What we accept or reject is based on the relationship between what we learn and our life experiences. You may be convinced that something is true while someone else is not. The other person simply does not see it as you do.
You no more invoke your conviction of truth through an act of 'free will' than the person who is not convinced. Conviction is not simply an act of 'free will,' it is a complex underlying process.
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
Have you thought about the greatest commandment and second greatest commandment and how they might affect your conclusions?
One can love god, and our neighbours as ourselves, but the gospels tell me there is more required than that. I don't believe there is a lite version of Christianity where we can disregard what Christ said in the gospels.
Who says someone is a prophet of God? The writer? The reader? God? And if God, who says that God said they were? But to use your criteria as a test model, then not only was Enoch a prophet, but he never tasted the death and was taken up into Heaven on God's command. I think I would be most interested in reading Enoch's book if I was concerned about Christianity.
A few verses referencing prophet criteria
2 Peter 1: 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [a]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Jeremiah 28:9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet.”
Yep! Those books sure fit under this.
I find it interesting that Jahrs quotes Second Peter, which is widely considered a later forgery and NOT written by Peter, even among those who biblical scholars who believe Peter existed.
There are many scholars that conclude that 2 Peter was indeed written by Peter.
Written by Peter? ...... Yes.
Of course, that is not the crucial issue. One can continue to look in the dark for God but God is not found in the dark.
If one spends his life trying to convince himself that Jesus is not God, he make succeed in “spending” his life that way.
One can love god, and our neighbours as ourselves, but the gospels tell me there is more required than that. I don't believe there is a lite version of Christianity where we can disregard what Christ said in the gospels.
Yes, but note that if we get firm in our “followance” of the first two, then we will follow God, obey his commands and life life as He directs us in a manner more fruitful and pleasing to Him.
Remember, God does not need our work or service or money or anything from us.....to accomplish His will on earth. Seems that what He wants from us first and foremost,is that intimate relationship with Him. Our works at service then follow on as we please the God who loves us and who reveals Himself to us.
One can love god, and our neighbours as ourselves, but the gospels tell me there is more required than that. I don't believe there is a lite version of Christianity where we can disregard what Christ said in the gospels.
Yes, but note that if we get firm in our “followance” of the first two, then we will follow God, obey his commands and life life as He directs us in a manner more fruitful and pleasing to Him.
Remember, God does not need our work or service or money or anything from us.....to accomplish His will on earth. Seems that what He wants from us first and foremost,is that intimate relationship with Him. Our works at service then follow on as we please the God who loves us and who reveals Himself to us.
I understand what you mean, I just can't see how one can pass over specific instructions Jesus said in the gospels. To give one example, about giving away everything and following him, such as what he told the rich man, or saying that it would be easier to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to enter heaven. He says : "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth." And further: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than to go with two hands into hell, where the fire never goes out." And then from ( I think Mathew) "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
I think this must be a point of concern for a Christian person. I am still considering this and what it means for someone who says they believe in a Christian God yet owns three houses.
One can love god, and our neighbours as ourselves, but the gospels tell me there is more required than that. I don't believe there is a lite version of Christianity where we can disregard what Christ said in the gospels.
Yes, but note that if we get firm in our “followance” of the first two, then we will follow God, obey his commands and life life as He directs us in a manner more fruitful and pleasing to Him.
Remember, God does not need our work or service or money or anything from us.....to accomplish His will on earth. Seems that what He wants from us first and foremost,is that intimate relationship with Him. Our works at service then follow on as we please the God who loves us and who reveals Himself to us.
What I have ben thinking through is that what you have described is too simplistic, when put up against what Jesus actually said in the gospels, to give one example, about giving away everything and following him, such as what he told the rich man, or saying that it would be easier to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to enter heaven. Further related to material wealth : If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than to go with two hands into hell, where the fire never goes out. And then from ( I think Mathew) "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
My first post above comes across as categorically glib, or tending towards dismissive sarcasm, this is not my intention, for I think this is a point of concern for a Christian person.
Ok, I would not debate your view on this. Each is called to lead a different life and do different things.
I see allegory in much of what Jesus taught. For example, we would think that it is impossible for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle. Does that mean a rich man cannot enter heaven? Probably not. What it might indicate is that a man who trusts in his own wealth and not God’s mercy will not seek Him and therefore miss out.
The cutting off of the hand seems to be hyperbole for the purpose of indicating how serious sin is in God’s sight and a warning for us to correctly deal with the sin in our own lives.
The metaphor of cutting off your hand, is intended to as I understand it, to remove things from yourself that lead you to sin, in the context I brought it up it means to give away material wealth, leading into "blessed are the poor for yours is the kingdom of God.
To be honest, I do not have a view. I am trying to understand. there seems to be something important there, but I haven't got it straight yet completely. When someone says to me they believe in God, I am wondering - do you really?
One can love god, and our neighbours as ourselves, but the gospels tell me there is more required than that. I don't believe there is a lite version of Christianity where we can disregard what Christ said in the gospels.
I have thought about your statement a bit more. I agree with you in concept.
The Book of James is a book that challenges me to the point that I almost don’t want to read it. But I end up spending quite a lot of time there as I always seem to be convicted when I think about what it says and how it applies to my life.
One can love god, and our neighbours as ourselves, but the gospels tell me there is more required than that. I don't believe there is a lite version of Christianity where we can disregard what Christ said in the gospels.
I have thought about your statement a bit more. I agree with you in concept.
The Book of James is a book that challenges me to the point that I almost don’t want to read it. But I end up spending quite a lot of time there as I always seem to be convicted when I think about what it says and how it applies to my life.
There was not a book of James in the original books, so believing in a book named after King James would be extremely challenging.
It appears that the Harvest must be getting near. Matthew 13:24-30
The metaphor of cutting off your hand, is intended to as I understand it, to remove things from yourself that lead you to sin, in the context I brought it up it means to give away material wealth, leading into "blessed are the poor for yours is the kingdom of God.
To be honest, I do not have a view. I am trying to understand. there seems to be something important there, but I haven't got it straight yet completely. When someone says to me they believe in God, I am wondering - do you really? Is it possible to think of oneself as a complete or even devout Christian, and be wrong about it?
Really good thoughts....
The heart of the question may relate to the presence or absence of the Holy Spirit in one’s life.
Anyway, it has been my observation that a person that does not have the Spirit, worries little about whether or not he knows God or whether of not God knows him.
Concern or doubt about one’s salvation may be a good thing. It seems to indicate that God is working and a right and correct spiritual struggle is happening.
Spiritual growth is good, but with it come challenges.... challenges to one’s faith and challenges in life experiences ..... leads to a closer walk.
Told this before, but I had a guy come to me and ask me whether or not he was saved. He told me of his experiences and doubts. I asked him to get a sheet of paper and put two boxes on it..... one marked yes and the other marked no. I asked the question of him.... do you know God and does He know you? Pray about it and mark a box.
He went home and the next day he told me that he found it uncomfortable and in fact impossible to mark the “no” box. He marked the “yes” box. Settled that for him. He sought and gave God a chance to take him on another step in spiritual growth.
One can love god, and our neighbours as ourselves, but the gospels tell me there is more required than that. I don't believe there is a lite version of Christianity where we can disregard what Christ said in the gospels.
I have thought about your statement a bit more. I agree with you in concept.
The Book of James is a book that challenges me to the point that I almost don’t want to read it. But I end up spending quite a lot of time there as I always seem to be convicted when I think about what it says and how it applies to my life.
There was not a book of James in the original books, so believing in a book named after King James would be extremely challenging.
It appears that the Harvest must be getting near. Matthew 13:24-30
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
The historical evidence is reasonably undeniable--check the records.
When you tell someone that you don't believe in the bible, or a god, and they immediately quote the bible as proof is what gets me laughing. Ignorance is Bliss I guess.
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
You find Ehrman’s evidence insufficient.....? Lol...... Ok, you can be the judge, after all it is only you that you have to convince. Perhaps someday you will reconsider when you are confronted with conflict.
Who is this “religious follower who’s obligated to mindlessly believe.....?” Sounds like you. You are obligated to only believe the science.
There is an entire suite of reality, beings and experiences out there that you are seemingly unaware of.
But, by all means trundle on, keeping your eyes shut.
The Bible refers to those in this condition as “blind.”
Why would you presume I've never been confronted with conflict?
I've faced my fair share and see no benefit in confronting conflict through a distorted lens of reality.
As for what I'm "obligated" to believe, as a skeptic, unlike the religious, I'm not "obligated" to believe anything until I find the evidence is sufficient to support a given belief.
When scientist initially make claims about the existence of what we label Dark Matter, it was probably 10 years before I found the evidence sufficient to support the claim it existed. Theologians have had a couple thousand years, and yet, they still can't come up with anything as convincing as the lensing effect of dark matter.
His goal was to philosophically convince Rome to officially reject Christianity and return officially to paganism. His arguments against the deity of Christ clearly establish Jesus as a man of history. He had access to the Roman census records. Anyone who says there is not evidence to prove that Jesus is a man of history has either not done the research or they refuse to believe the evidence. Unbelief in in the historicity of Jesus Christ is a matter of the heart and not the head. Skeptics are typically not willing to believe the evidence.
Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
Isaiah 53 prophesied in advance that the Jews and many others would largely reject Christ as their Messiah. Your "evidence" is merely proof of what Isaiah foresaw with divine inspiration before you were born and could make your statements. Truth is not created or annihilated by belief, but by facts. The facts of history are that Jesus died and rose again. Whether you choose to believe that He is the promised Messiah is a personal faith choice that does not alter the facts of history in either way.
I think you are missing the point I was making. The critics of Christianity in the days of the early Church did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, because there were too many witnesses...
Famous magicians still draw large audiences that 'witness' objects appearing and disappearing, miracle like.
some even think great magicians have sold their soul to the devil to gain the ability to do what they believe are wonderous awe inspiring supernatural acts or demomstrations.
then others with adopted religious beliefs will think a person can get such supernatural powers from a God.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the ultimate proof that His deeds were not sleight of hand, illusory, or occultic. .
Christians for millennia have ultimately relied on FAITH that He has risen , not proof.
Evidence or proof based beliefs don't require such faith , or do they?
When it comes to right before ones very eyes miracles or magic shows, People can claim to witness things and simply be fooled into believing something happened that didn't actually happen...but they will swear it did. now if that aint credulous enough ....many folks today [without actually witnessing] totally believe in miracles /or magic shows from 2000+ yrs ago and they remain totally convinced that it happened precisely the way they have been told it happened.
In other words,.. they are putting blind faith in the long strung-out contorted word of mouth subjective beliefs shared from one anonymous [non-witnessing] believer to another....and they take it all to be the indisputable Gospel Truth.
These statements about Christianity simply are not true. The death and resurrection story from the very beginning was shared on the basis of fact. Note Luke's Gospel's opening statements:
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke makes it clear to Theophilus that the things believed by the Christians were based on eye witness accounts. In his gospel record he provides the chronology of the events tracing the timelines with both the Jewish religious calendar and significant events in the Roman Empire with the intent to show the certainty of the record. This time frame of Christ has been validated by both Suetonius and and Tacitus the Roman historians as Jesus having been crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Suetonius--Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
Tacitus--But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Pliny--They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.
When you tell someone that you don't believe in the bible, or a god, and they immediately quote the bible as proof is what gets me laughing. Ignorance is Bliss I guess.
Well quoting the Bible establishes the source of their belief--if they couldn't quote a supporting reference it would leave their belief merely a personal persuasion like a skeptic's belief. However this response does not mean that there is not plenty of external witnesses to the truth of scripture in history and archaeology. The skeptic's position is based on their lack of a sure knowledge--which is not convincing of anything.
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
[quote=Jahrs]Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
You can’t lump all Jews into that category. Wernt they all jews that were praying in the upper room? All of the initial Christians were Jews as well. And to question the truth of the proposition, as you say, made in Jesus’ name being dependent upon whether or not he existed would mean that the Bible, His Word, would be false.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true?
And with this question you are admitting that those propositions are true.
I should of been more clear and asked if it would change the truth value of the precepts, or something of that nature. In other words, do the Christian claims regarding what's proper behavior and wisdom survive scrutiny with out the supernatural god claims. Can the Christian precepts stand on their own?
They have for centuries--does your belief system have the same track record?
In the past I have brought up some of the scriptural indescrepencies he mentions, but IIRC, none of the cF Christians were able to dress them.
Of course not.
The best they ever manage was some Ad hominem against Eherman.
The Jesus of Mark, and the Jesus of John, are two completely different characters. They are so different as to be mutually exclusive, and cannot both represent the true nature of the same character.
State your case that they can’t be the same person.
Contradictions yes but errors no. None, never has been an error proven. It’s totally reliable historically, prophetically and what it claims are that have happened.
Contradictions because the accounts come from different perspectives and personalities of the writers. Errors no because all writers were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote.
I’m pretty sure that all condradictions have already been addressed by theologians and can be answered in a reasonable manner.
Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.
Please explain the contradiction when using all the gospel accounts.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
That's easy. Use a trick illusion to fulfill any prophecy you want. I mentioned identical twins. I watched a pretty blond from a camera in a helicopter in the air. She disappeared from the ground and showed up riding in the helicopter. Cool illusion.
Explain how the prophecy concerning Cyrus' destruction of Babylon was a magical illusion.
James was the first book written in the New Testament about AD 50 for Jewish Christians. James was the half-brother of Jesus and was head of the Jerusalem Church. Paul hadn’t yet been converted, and the believers only had the Old Testament and what they knew about the risen Jesus.
James talked about the law of love, Christians are to be as totally committed to the law of love as the Jews were to the Mosaic law. Those were staunch Jews who had no blueprint on how to be Christ-followers. They couldn’t imagine no longer being under the law and having to now surrender to the Royal Law of Christ. Jesus fulfilled the law.
James is a book of grace and is not a book about works and the law. It was written to encourage the believers to have faith in Christ and fulfill the Royal Law by allowing their faith to build their trust in God.
I like the prophecies that said the Jews would regain their homeland and the capitol would be estored to Jerusalem and the temple restored and how they should sign no treaties with their enemies as they would try to push them into the sea and the 6 day war and how they would be carried to safety as though by the wings of an eagle (which Nixon did) and how good would become evil and evil good (gay) and how in the latter days the men would become as women (which would of necessity mean women would become as men) and how Christ would return at the last trump (or Trump?).
Oh, and that the city of Tyre (sp?) would fall into the sea never to rise again.
Knew nothing of the Book of Enoch so did a little research. Horny angels jumping human women sounds interesting. Particularly since angels not being native to our universe, having no physical presence, should be nonsexual. And them hungry giants!
That of which you post can also be found in the Bible. Their spawn was one of the reasons for the flood.
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
The gospel has always been for all classes of people. No one can earn their salvation by riches or voluntary poverty. Jesus talked to people from all walks of life. He was always consistent on Him being the only way of salvation and the importance for us to follow His moral and spiritual teachings. He did not give every person the same life direction regarding wealth because each person's calling can be different. The Scriptures give guidance to the rich and poor and indicate that covetousness is not based on what we do or do not have, but rather it is a condition of the heart that can affect all classes. Instructions are given concerning those who are rich to not trust in their riches ... which also assumes their will be some rich believers. In every class of wealth or poverty we are called upon to yield those resources to the Lord and use them as He would direct our lives. We are told not to trust in uncertain riches but in the One who gives to us richly.
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
If you haven’t seen this video that I posted over a week ago please take a look now. Listen or watch it in its entirety and consider and evaluate it fairly for yourself.
[/quote]Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.[quote]
The Gospels all agree that Jesus died on a Friday during Passover on the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath (cf. Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:42). Once you identify this common thread through all the gospels now you can understand what each one is trying to convey. Matthew and Mark emphasize that they were eating a Passover meal. They also clarify that the leaders did not intend to apprehend Him on the official temple Passover day, therefore the plan was take him before the official temple Passover. (Matt.26:5; Mk 14:2) Luke clarifies that Christ intended for this Passover meal to take place as the "eaten in the home Passover" before He was crucified.Luke 22:15 John indicates that this meal eaten in the home took place before the official temple Passover took place. John 13:1; 18:28; 19:14
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
I find it interesting that Jahrs quotes Second Peter, which is widely considered a later forgery and NOT written by Peter, even among those who biblical scholars who believe Peter existed.
Yes, that is interesting. I will continue to do my "church" thing at home as we have for 20+ years. I may be accused of failing somewhere else by God, but it won't be because I physically and silently allowed innocent babies to be murdered in this country. That is just one of many issues we have addressed in the last 20+ years. It appears these wonderful churches many are so proud of have adapted the song: Silence is Golden.
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
That's easy. Use a trick illusion to fulfill any prophecy you want. I mentioned identical twins. I watched a pretty blond from a camera in a helicopter in the air. She disappeared from the ground and showed up riding in the helicopter. Cool illusion.
Explain how the prophecy concerning Cyrus' destruction of Babylon was a magical illusion.
Prophecies are predictions credited to intuition or inspiration. Sometimes they even come true. Has very little to do with explaining how some “miracles” are preformed by illusions. I have seen Shaquille O'Neal float over a house. A really “big” illusion.
[/quote]Prophecies are predictions credited to intuition or inspiration. Sometimes they even come true. Has very little to do with explaining how some “miracles” are preformed by illusions. I have seen Shaquille O'Neal float over a house. A really “big” illusion.[quote]
So unless you can establish a clear connection between magic and the prophecy concerning Cyrus that I cited you would honestly need to admit that this is no correlation between magic and Bible prophecy--which you already knew. The point that is established is that no one can make the predictive and fulfilled prophecies on the grand scale as the Bible authors. The fulfillment of prophecy is clearly an example of miraculous prescience that cannot be duplicated by any scientific or statistical model.If God can infuse individuals with miraculous prescience He can also use individuals to perform other miraculous acts.
Again as pointed out in the beginning of this thread--the scientific principles of the uncaused first cause, the anthropic principle, and irreducible complexity all require a miraculous creation outside of the present laws of science. Therefore it is unscientific to reject the possibility of miracles, because science requires a miracle to create the order from which science is derived.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.” ― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space
Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.
Quote
The Gospels all agree that Jesus died on a Friday during Passover on the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath (cf. Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:42). Once you identify this common thread through all the gospels now you can understand what each one is trying to convey. Matthew and Mark emphasize that they were eating a Passover meal. They also clarify that the leaders did not intend to apprehend Him on the official temple Passover day, therefore the plan was take him before the official temple Passover. (Matt.26:5; Mk 14:2) Luke clarifies that Christ intended for this Passover meal to take place as the "eaten in the home Passover" before He was crucified.Luke 22:15 John indicates that this meal eaten in the home took place before the official temple Passover took place. John 13:1; 18:28; 19:14
Not saying Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman empires never existed. I'm saying the bible is fiction. Just like a novel about the Civil War will have some truth's in it I.E. years and battles are right ,but the story is made up.
Not saying Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman empires never existed. I'm saying the bible is fiction. Just like a novel about the Civil War will have some truth's in it I.E. years and battles are right ,but the story is made up.
Not saying Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman empires never existed. I'm saying the bible is fiction. Just like a novel about the Civil War will have some truth's in it I.E. years and battles are right ,but the story is made up.
On what basis can you accurately draw those conclusions when the Persian, Greek, and Roman empires were predicted long before they came into existence? What novel of the Civil War could parallel the Bible in predictive prophecy as it tells its stories?
For the believers, keep praying, keep doing good, keep helping your fellow man...just continue to be a nice person....or if you do not want to do anything but be to yourself, thats ok too.
For the non believers, I respect your opinions...I do not hate you...try to be at peace within yourself....
If you read old newspapers from the C.W. time you will find articles saying it was foretold in the bible,same with all the wars it seems. Make enough predictions and you can claim one or the other came true. It is easy to make general predictions and have them come true given enough time.
Your bias against facing the facts is showing ... if you had a rudimentary knowledge of Bible prophecy you would know it its a not a game of hit and miss or try until you get lucky. The fulfilled prophecies concerning Bible events are very detailed. For example 69 weeks of years from the order to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah. Born in Bethlehem--family fled to Egypt--ministry in Galilee--virgin birth. Please explain how you easily and accurately could make similar predictions? America couldn't even predict the fall of the USSR in advance and Daniel predicted the rise and fall of world powers before they even became a world power.
[quote=Starman][quote=Thunderstick]... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth.
That's easy. Use a trick illusion to fulfill any prophecy you want. I mentioned identical twins. I watched a pretty blond from a camera in a helicopter in the air. She disappeared from the ground and showed up riding in the helicopter. Cool illusion.
Explain how the prophecy concerning Cyrus' destruction of Babylon was a magical illusion.
Prophecies are predictions credited to intuition or inspiration. Sometimes they even come true. Has very little to do with explaining how some “miracles” are preformed by illusions. I have seen Shaquille O'Neal float over a house. A really “big” illusion.
BS
Moses gave Pharaoh plenty of prophicies which came true and were not illusions. Finally Pharoah relized the God of Moses was The God who couldnt be defeated by Pharaohs magicians and their illusions. They couldnt make the locusts appear to disappear and they couldnt make the wine taste like water. Pharaoh got a clue and let Moses and Gods people go. He failed to learn his lesson well and sent his army straight to hell. Some here would benefit from learning this lesson on the accuracy of Biblical prophecy well.
If not, the prophecy of dying and going to hell will be experienced by you as well.
Not saying Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman empires never existed. I'm saying the bible is fiction. Just like a novel about the Civil War will have some truth's in it I.E. years and battles are right ,but the story is made up.
You can say anything you want, at least for a little while longer in the US, but that does not make it true. And from the experiences many Christian have with their faith, millions would say you are are wrong, as I do.
- To some a miracle of God or work of the devil , to others its just plain everyday magic, trickery or illusion.
cHristians may call it non miracle BS even though they saw it with their very own eyes, yet they will believe a person rose from the dead 2000 yrs ago without seeing it.
nOt believing the things you do see , yet believing the things you haven't seen.
The truth is the truth, with or without the Bible.
heaven and hell exist in your mind only because you read it in a book, or you started believing someone who told you those places exist.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The death and resurrection story from the very beginning was shared on the basis of fact.
So for christians the resurrection of Jesus is not based on their FAITH / BELIEF..? If christians knew it as FACT , why would they need to trust in their FAITH..?
def. of faith: = strong belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
PROOF is needed to demonstrate a claim as FACT ..Thus FAITH cannot be FACT based, because facts require proof - if you have proof establishing fact ,then its not faith.
Christians with their lack of proof thus does not permit them to establish fact, and if they did have such it would nullify their need for faith. Christians overwhelmingly rely on their faith simply because faith [or beliefs] don't require facts, evidence, proof or truth.
Statements without evidence are merely statements.----------That sums up the whole bible. Thank you
When evidence is presented in the form of contradictictions and history, stories taken from older cultures and religions, etc....It is all dismissed without consideration.
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
The historical evidence is reasonably undeniable--check the records.
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
You find Ehrman’s evidence insufficient.....? Lol...... Ok, you can be the judge, after all it is only you that you have to convince. Perhaps someday you will reconsider when you are confronted with conflict.
Who is this “religious follower who’s obligated to mindlessly believe.....?” Sounds like you. You are obligated to only believe the science.
There is an entire suite of reality, beings and experiences out there that you are seemingly unaware of.
But, by all means trundle on, keeping your eyes shut.
The Bible refers to those in this condition as “blind.”
Why would you presume I've never been confronted with conflict?
I've faced my fair share and see no benefit in confronting conflict through a distorted lens of reality.
As for what I'm "obligated" to believe, as a skeptic, unlike the religious, I'm not "obligated" to believe anything until I find the evidence is sufficient to support a given belief.
When scientist initially make claims about the existence of what we label Dark Matter, it was probably 10 years before I found the evidence sufficient to support the claim it existed. Theologians have had a couple thousand years, and yet, they still can't come up with anything as convincing as the lensing effect of dark matter.
His goal was to philosophically convince Rome to officially reject Christianity and return officially to paganism. His arguments against the deity of Christ clearly establish Jesus as a man of history. He had access to the Roman census records. Anyone who says there is not evidence to prove that Jesus is a man of history has either not done the research or they refuse to believe the evidence. Unbelief in in the historicity of Jesus Christ is a matter of the heart and not the head. Skeptics are typically not willing to believe the evidence.
Julian wasn't born until 331ce. He's not a contemporary source for Christ.
Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
Isaiah 53 prophesied in advance that the Jews and many others would largely reject Christ as their Messiah. Your "evidence" is merely proof of what Isaiah foresaw with divine inspiration before you were born and could make your statements. Truth is not created or annihilated by belief, but by facts. The facts of history are that Jesus died and rose again. Whether you choose to believe that He is the promised Messiah is a personal faith choice that does not alter the facts of history in either way.
But the passage is not about Jesus. The Suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus.
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
[quote=Jahrs]Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
You can’t lump all Jews into that category. Wernt they all jews that were praying in the upper room? All of the initial Christians were Jews as well. And to question the truth of the proposition, as you say, made in Jesus’ name being dependent upon whether or not he existed would mean that the Bible, His Word, would be false.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true?
And with this question you are admitting that those propositions are true.
I should of been more clear and asked if it would change the truth value of the precepts, or something of that nature. In other words, do the Christian claims regarding what's proper behavior and wisdom survive scrutiny with out the supernatural god claims. Can the Christian precepts stand on their own?
They have for centuries--does your belief system have the same track record?
Skepticims predates Socrates. It goes back until at least the 5th century bce, so it actually has a longer track record than Christianity.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
That's easy. Use a trick illusion to fulfill any prophecy you want. I mentioned identical twins. I watched a pretty blond from a camera in a helicopter in the air. She disappeared from the ground and showed up riding in the helicopter. Cool illusion.
Explain how the prophecy concerning Cyrus' destruction of Babylon was a magical illusion.
The book of Isiah wasn't finished until around 70ce.....No magic's required when you are adding and "interpolating" after the fact.
Hes stupid enough to think Jesus walked the earth giving the Good News knowing it wasnt true and hoping to hoodwink millions of people to spend billions over the ages supporting churches and pastors without seeking financial gain for himself.
Sheesh.
What was Jesus to get out of life for his charade other than crucifiction? Dumbasses never consider these things.
Hey rimfire, Jesus only wanted to pull the wool over on guys like me,
Or, "If it were not so i would not have told you so".
Hes stupid enough to think Jesus walked the earth giving the Good News knowing it wasnt true and hoping to hoodwink millions of people to spend billions over the ages supporting churches and pastors without seeking financial gain for himself.
Sheesh.
What was Jesus to get out of life for his charade other than crucifiction? Dumbasses never consider these things.
Hey rimfire, Jesus only wanted to pull the wool over on guys like me,
Or, "If it were not so i would not have told you so".
Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.
Please explain the contradiction when using all the gospel accounts.
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
The gospel has always been for all classes of people. No one can earn their salvation by riches or voluntary poverty. Jesus talked to people from all walks of life. He was always consistent on Him being the only way of salvation and the importance for us to follow His moral and spiritual teachings. He did not give every person the same life direction regarding wealth because each person's calling can be different. The Scriptures give guidance to the rich and poor and indicate that covetousness is not based on what we do or do not have, but rather it is a condition of the heart that can affect all classes. Instructions are given concerning those who are rich to not trust in their riches ... which also assumes their will be some rich believers. In every class of wealth or poverty we are called upon to yield those resources to the Lord and use them as He would direct our lives. We are told not to trust in uncertain riches but in the One who gives to us richly.
The gospels reiterate many times their association with the poor, it seems to me the gospels do not have the amount of leeway to allow an interpretation as you have written, although I am still considering the matter. I am not entirely convinced that the gospels were aimed at people from all walks of life, or even that they were intended other than exclusively for the Jews. Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman make that specifically clear, I did not understand this passage in the past, (as it wasn't made clear to me that she was a gentile woman.) I am not considering at this time what was written afterwards, such as by Paul, or even James, I am studying Jesus's words.
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
The gospel has always been for all classes of people. No one can earn their salvation by riches or voluntary poverty. Jesus talked to people from all walks of life. He was always consistent on Him being the only way of salvation and the importance for us to follow His moral and spiritual teachings. He did not give every person the same life direction regarding wealth because each person's calling can be different. The Scriptures give guidance to the rich and poor and indicate that covetousness is not based on what we do or do not have, but rather it is a condition of the heart that can affect all classes. Instructions are given concerning those who are rich to not trust in their riches ... which also assumes their will be some rich believers. In every class of wealth or poverty we are called upon to yield those resources to the Lord and use them as He would direct our lives. We are told not to trust in uncertain riches but in the One who gives to us richly.
The gospels reiterate many times their association with the poor, it seems to me the gospels do not have the amount of leeway to allow an interpretation as you have written, although I am still considering the matter. I am not entirely convinced that the gospels were aimed at people from all walks of life, or even that they were intended other than exclusively for the Jews. Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman make that specifically clear, I did not understand this passage in the past, (as it wasn't made clear to me that she was a gentile woman.) I am not considering at this time what was written afterwards, such as by Paul, or even James, I am studying Jesus's words.
Except the "authentic Pauline" letters were written before the Gospels......
What I mean is I am focusing on the gospels themselves, and am not yet considering for the moment Paul role in the early church, that came after the events described in them.
It takes more “blind faith” to claim Jesus never existed and a lot of denial of historical evidence than to claim the opposite. As for me, I think the preponderance of the historical evidence points to the reality of not only Jesus’ life, but also his resurrection. And if he really did raise from the dead his personhood and who he really is, is the most profound question all of humanity must come to grips with. If he really “chose to lay his life down and to take it up again” as the historical record seems to indicate, it was the single most amazing and terrifying truth of the universe with awe inspiring implications. A man who has no desire to “wrestle” with the implications of his own sin, and guilt, will quickly form a world view that refuses to acknowledge a personal Holy God or any kind of “accountability”. That is just the simple psychological result of cognitive dissonance. For me and my life, I have chosen to embrace the historical Jesus Christ as my risen savior, who’s death on the cross atoned fully and completely for my sin (with which I still struggle, as long as I live). I am fully aware that no amount of evidence or rational argument will pursuade a non believer to adopt the faith, as that only comes through the spirit drawing a man to Him. But for those, open to the truth of Jesus Christ, there Is no shortage of rational arguments to support such a descision. My life was transformed by Christ, and my family is the beneficiary.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
The gospel has always been for all classes of people. No one can earn their salvation by riches or voluntary poverty. Jesus talked to people from all walks of life. He was always consistent on Him being the only way of salvation and the importance for us to follow His moral and spiritual teachings. He did not give every person the same life direction regarding wealth because each person's calling can be different. The Scriptures give guidance to the rich and poor and indicate that covetousness is not based on what we do or do not have, but rather it is a condition of the heart that can affect all classes. Instructions are given concerning those who are rich to not trust in their riches ... which also assumes their will be some rich believers. In every class of wealth or poverty we are called upon to yield those resources to the Lord and use them as He would direct our lives. We are told not to trust in uncertain riches but in the One who gives to us richly.
The gospels reiterate many times their association with the poor, it seems to me the gospels do not have the amount of leeway to allow an interpretation as you have written, although I am still considering the matter. I am not entirely convinced that the gospels were aimed at people from all walks of life, or even that they were intended other than exclusively for the Jews. Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman make that specifically clear, I did not understand this passage in the past, (as it wasn't made clear to me that she was a gentile woman.) I am not considering at this time what was written afterwards, such as by Paul, or even James, I am studying Jesus's words.
Except the "authentic Pauline" letters were written before the Gospels......
Sniper, Not that it is relevant, but please give the Pauline letters and their corresponding date of authorship, and maybe just a sentence or two to support your theory on the dating of each one.
A good read on the dating of the gospels. Evidence seems to indicate that Luke and Mark were probably written some time in th 50’s or 60’s as they mention nothing about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. and Luke mentions nothing of Paul’s death which would have been some where around 65-69 AD.
The Gospels remind me of 4 different investigative reports, written by two eye witnesses and two who based their reports on eye witnesses and ultimately all 4 led to the same conclusion. That Jesus was the son of the living God, was crucified and physically rose from the dead.
It has not been established that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Plus there is an overlap, the later gospels copied heavily from Mark, which in turn is based on word of mouth, and possibly earlier unknown manuscripts.
... Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Paul claimed to be a legitimate eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus despite not having seen him, scripture ( Acts 9 ) simply says he saw a flash of light, then fell to the ground and heard a voice, while the other men travelling with Paul heard no such voice and saw no Jesus, only the light.
When Paul got up from the ground and then opened his eyes, he also saw no Jesus, and also found that he was blind for some days following.
Paul chose to subjectively interpret that light flash experience as a post resurrection appearance of Jesus, thus one would have to consider how influenced he was by his own credulity or wishful thinking.
If you'll follow Paul's testimonies about how he was selected by the LORD as apostle to the Gentiles, you'd see that he refers to time spent in Arabia, some thirteen years or so before beginning the greater part of his work. In that time, back at the true Mt. Sinai (in Arabia) as with Moses and Elijah, Paul received from the LORD Jesus what he was to say. The journey to Jerusalem he refers to was to explain his "gospel" to the Jerusalem-based church, still rooted in temple-based worship and observance of Jewish law. The Damascus Road experience and subsequent time spent in blindness until Ananias prayed over him (as instructed by the LORD) isn't the whole story of Paul's apostleship -- he saw the LORD, then spent years with Him before ministry.
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
I'm a little late with this, but here goes. Tell me what's wrong with contradictions.
If the bible was "fact" there would be no contradictions in it,and only one version could exist all over the world. A few hundred years ago you could be thrown in jail or even killed for believing the earth was round, or not the center of the universe. Again to "believers" ignorance is BLISS.
"If not, the prophecy of dying and going to hell will be experienced by you as well."
Prove it without quoting anything in the Bible.
So most people will not have after life experience and then be able to report back on what they saw. Even if they did no one would still believe it anyway unless they could personally experience it. It's obvious that from personal human experience we can neither prove nor disprove any after life. This is why we base our claims on a book that shown its reliability in so many other areas and believe that it has far more credentials to address this topic than any of us here who might speculate about it.
The truth is the truth, with or without the Bible.
heaven and hell exist in your mind only because you read it in a book, or you started believing someone who told you those places exist.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The death and resurrection story from the very beginning was shared on the basis of fact.
So for christians the resurrection of Jesus is not based on their FAITH / BELIEF..? If christians knew it as FACT , why would they need to trust in their FAITH..?
def. of faith: = strong belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
PROOF is needed to demonstrate a claim as FACT ..Thus FAITH cannot be FACT based, because facts require proof - if you have proof establishing fact ,then its not faith.
Christians with their lack of proof thus does not permit them to establish fact, and if they did have such it would nullify their need for faith. Christians overwhelmingly rely on their faith simply because faith [or beliefs] don't require facts, evidence, proof or truth.
There is some circular reasoning here. On the same criteria you cannot prove that Jesus never rose from the dead. You were not there--you did not guard the tomb to confirm the presence of the body till decay. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty. Furthermore your approach would invalidate all history as fact because you cannot personally validate the events as an eye-witness. However on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history. They look at the evidence and try to make reasonable conclusions and then they teach history.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence. We have a strong faith in the certainty of because of the reasonably indisputable evidence from the historical record.
Likewise: 1. we have reasonably indisputable historical evidence from various sources that Jesus was crucified in a public event 2. we have indisputable evidence that some of the early believers "claimed" that He also arose because they were eyewitness of His resurrected body 3. they spread the stories of their resurrection claims throughout the whole world 4. the world was hostile to the resurrection claims of the early Christians 5. the apostles and early Christians were put to death for making these claims and promoting the teachings of Christ 6. the early Christians did not have the favor or aid of the government to protect their faith 7. the story continued to spread and grow and could not be dismissed 8. all the events surrounding the death and crucifixion were in the gospel accounts and could be investigated and disproven 9. the critics and enemies of Christianity were never successful in refuting those claims and the church grew 10. Diocletion ordered all the Scriptures apprehended and burnt and Christians executed if they would not recant their faith 11. But the story grew to the point where the succeeding Roman Emperor Constantine officially embraced Christianity. While this also began to introduce some corruptions into the church it still establishes the fact that the basic story of Jesus was validated on the basis of evidence. 12. Emporer Julian comes along and tries to make intellectual arguments to dismiss the resurrection of Christ. His arguments fail and the story grows even further.
Friends, in the early ages of Christianity when it was being persecuted, everyone had access to the data needed to refute the resurrection claims--more data than we have today. Eye-witnesses could be interviewed, stories of the gospels could be investigated, the public crucifixion under Pontius Pilate could be verified. The man Jesus was crucified by the Romans and guarded because Jesus said in advance He would rise again--what happened to the body? The only thing the critics needed to do was prove that Christ never arose.
Our faith is based on indisputable evidence. The Bible defines our faith as such:
Quote
Now faith is the reality (or assurance or substance as some translations say) of what is hoped for, the proof (or evidence as some translations say) of what is not seen Heb.11:1
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence. Unbelief is based upon blind faith that refuses to acknowledge the testimony of reasonable evidence because of a strong prejudice against moral absolutes.
[/quote]Julian wasn't born until 331ce. He's not a contemporary source for Christ. [quote]
He referenced the Roman census records and he could investigate the story on the basis of the Roman records--that is good proof under any impartial criteria. He had access to more early data than we do.
But the passage is not about Jesus. The Suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus.
Explain the logic of the Lord laying on Israel the sins of all Israel so that by their stripes Israel might be healed when the context is clearly referencing two separate entities. There is no logic in that in that view.
[/quote]Skepticims predates Socrates. It goes back until at least the 5th century bce, so it actually has a longer track record than Christianity.[quote]
Skepticism begins with the fall of man into sin when Adam and Eve were tempted by --Did God really say ...? However prior to that Adam walked with God and thus knew better.
From a purely historical point of view our current beliefs trace back to the advent of human history and the introduction of the 10 commandments and their morality that we still embrace.
The book of Isiah wasn't finished until around 70ce.....No magic's required when you are adding and "interpolating" after the fact.
An historical inaccuracy--It was recorded in the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint was completed 132 BCE, which of course means it existed in the Hebrew text long before that.
The gospels reiterate many times their association with the poor, it seems to me the gospels do not have the amount of leeway to allow an interpretation as you have written, although I am still considering the matter. I am not entirely convinced that the gospels were aimed at people from all walks of life, or even that they were intended other than exclusively for the Jews. Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman make that specifically clear, I did not understand this passage in the past, (as it wasn't made clear to me that she was a gentile woman.) I am not considering at this time what was written afterwards, such as by Paul, or even James, I am studying Jesus's words.
The apostles gave us Jesus' words. John 16: 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Peter as an eye-witness and apostle affirms the writings of Paul as reliable and the equal of other Scriptures. 2Pet.3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
It has not been established that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Plus there is an overlap, the later gospels copied heavily from Mark, which in turn is based on word of mouth, and possibly earlier unknown manuscripts.
The early church writers from all over the world of that time give testimony on authorship of the gospels. They didn't get together to conspire authorship conspiracies. The critics also quoted these gospels and their authors. A lot of skeptical reasoning today is based purely on speculative conjecture because it is fashionable among the liberals.
It has not been established that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Plus there is an overlap, the later gospels copied heavily from Mark, which in turn is based on word of mouth, and possibly earlier unknown manuscripts.
The early church writers from all over the world of that time give testimony on authorship of the gospels. They didn't get together to conspire authorship conspiracies. The critics also quoted these gospels and their authors. A lot of skeptical reasoning today is based purely on speculative conjecture because it is fashionable among the liberals.
Originally Posted by Starman
Originally Posted by DBT
... Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Paul claimed to be a legitimate eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus despite not having seen him, scripture ( Acts 9 ) simply says he saw a flash of light, then fell to the ground and heard a voice, while the other men travelling with Paul heard no such voice and saw no Jesus, only the light.
When Paul got up from the ground and then opened his eyes, he also saw no Jesus, and also found that he was blind for some days following.
Paul chose to subjectively interpret that light flash experience as a post resurrection appearance of Jesus, thus one would have to consider how influenced he was by his own credulity or wishful thinking.
In recounting that testimony he makes it clear that he saw the Lord and talked with Him and received his missionary calling. Peter also in his epistle affirms the reliability of Paul's writings.
If the bible was "fact" there would be no contradictions in it,and only one version could exist all over the world. A few hundred years ago you could be thrown in jail or even killed for believing the earth was round, or not the center of the universe. Again to "believers" ignorance is BLISS.
Galileo was also a Christian. He did not allow the misapplication of faith by his contemporaries to overthrow his personal faith. The Greek and Hebrew often have a broad range of acceptable choices for some words that will flow with the context. For example the Greek word for patience can be: patience, steadfastness, perseverance, endurance These are different shades of meaning that are not contradictory, and seeing the full scope of possible translation is helpful. There are no true contradictions in the Bible records, but there are statements on either side of a subject that help us to find the center balance. I have yet to see a skeptic post a true contradiction that is not reasonably reconciled. This thread has demonstrated this once again.
it appears that in many cases, it's not what is written in the gospels is at issue. it's our interpretation of the words & sentences that cause us so much confusion.
if only we could agree on the interpretations, the boat would float more smoothly in the water.
If the bible was "fact" there would be no contradictions in it,and only one version could exist all over the world. A few hundred years ago you could be thrown in jail or even killed for believing the earth was round, or not the center of the universe. Again to "believers" ignorance is BLISS.
Galileo was also a Christian. He did not allow the misapplication of faith by his contemporaries to overthrow his personal faith. The Greek and Hebrew often have a broad range of acceptable choices for some words that will flow with the context. For example the Greek word for patience can be: patience, steadfastness, perseverance, endurance These are different shades of meaning that are not contradictory, and seeing the full scope of possible translation is helpful. There are no true contradictions in the Bible records, but there are statements on either side of a subject that help us to find the center balance. I have yet to see a skeptic post a true contradiction that is not reasonably reconciled. This thread has demonstrated this once again.
Fortunately for me it is an easy look up as biblical contradictions have been well researched . The contradiction between the blood thirsty God of the old testament and the teachings of Jesus are what I find the most troubling.
However the list of contradictions in the details in the Bible is very long:
“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10
I already addressed this from the Scriptures--I can't help if someone chooses not to recognize the correlation of the gospel record.
The Power of God “… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26 “…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
Resurrection of the Dead “…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9 “…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” — Matthew 16:28
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33
“These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the “Son of God.” The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago."
“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
So totally unimaginative. Instead of thinking of ways these can both be true, you insist that it is impossible for them both to be true. It took me about 3 seconds to come up with scenarios where both can be true. The 1st one deals with law. As in, a son shall not be punished if his father commits a crime. The 2nd one is an observation of natural consequences. For instance, if the father commits a crime and is jailed or executed, the family is rendered impoverished due to the lack of a breadwinner. This has consequences, such as fewer educational opportunities for the children, perhaps hunger, perhaps homelessness, etc. These things in fact DO reverberate throughout generations.
“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
You didn't post the entire verse from Exodus. Well met,, like a lieberal demoncrap!!! That's the kinda chit they do all day long. And all this time I thought you were a straight shooter.
It ends in "of them that hate me". I believe the Creator of All There Is, could reserve that right for those who hate Him. And He knows who they are! Oh, yes, He does!!!
[/quote]However the list of contradictions in the details in the Bible is very long:
“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10[quote]
I am not going to respond to every contrived/alleged contradiction but I'll respond to this one to illustrate again how these alleged contradictions are simply based on cursory readings for the purpose of a skeptic's agenda.
Eccl. 1:4 A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever. Going back to Genesis 1:2 we can see that the earth is being referenced even before it was created into it's current condition from a 6 day creation. There was a pre-existing earth and water mass before the start of creation. There will also be a renewing and reshaping of the earth at the return of Christ. The world as we know it now will be burned up. A renewed heaven and earth will be formed that will last forever but this new heaven and earth comes out from the complete remake of the current earth.
This event is spoken of in the old and new Testaments: Isa 65:17. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven* must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
By this we can understand that the new heavens and new earth is a restoration of a perfect and sinless order.
Rev. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
This the fulfillment of that promise.
So there are two truths being taught throughout scripture--the destruction of the world as we know it today and the future renewal of the earth to perfection. In the one sense the earth abides forever and in the other sense the world as we know it is destroyed and passes away. It is very common for the easterner to think about two complementary concepts without seeing them as contradictions.
The analogy is given in Scripture of the destruction of the world being compared to the flood of Noah. While the water did not obliterate the earth it did destroy the world as they knew it at that time. So whether you believe in the flood or not you need to understand the hyperbole of the document being studied.
2 Pet. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
I found it interesting that many skeptics who point to the alleged contradictions in Scripture and will then turn around and say all religions are equally valid--and not see the obvious contradiction in that statement.
“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
You didn't post the entire verse from Exodus. Well met,, like a lieberal demoncrap!!! That's the kinda chit they do all day long. And all this time I thought you were a straight shooter.
It ends in "of them that hate me". I believe the Creator of All There Is, could reserve that right for those who hate Him. And He knows who they are! Oh, yes, He does!!!
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;”
Posting the whole verse does not change the contradiction.
The one set of verses is saying that if evil goes unchecked the consequences will extend to succeeding generations because the offense isn't broken. The Ezekiel passage is clarifying that the son can break the cycle of sin and not be held accountable for the sin of the father or experience the judgment from his father's sin. Both principles are correct--sin cycles keep repeating unless broken--but each generation has the option of breaking that cycle and God will honor that break and stop the consequences. Both of these truths are very relevant in the social issues of our day.
Personal Injury “…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25 “…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39
Temptation “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13 “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1
Resurrection of the Dead “…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9 “…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29
“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
You didn't post the entire verse from Exodus. Well met,, like a lieberal demoncrap!!! That's the kinda chit they do all day long. And all this time I thought you were a straight shooter.
It ends in "of them that hate me". I believe the Creator of All There Is, could reserve that right for those who hate Him. And He knows who they are! Oh, yes, He does!!!
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;”
Posting the whole verse does not change the contradiction.
Sure, it does. And once both verses are considered in their entirety, you should see that they are both saying the same thing in slightly different ways. Very slightly.
You didn't post all of Ezekiel 18:20 either: Ezekiel 18:20 King James Version (KJV) 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
This one says, much like Exodus 20:5, that whoever sins and is wicked will received punishment. If they are wicked, such as one who hates God, he will be punished, but for those not in sin. free ride. Quite simple and fair. But the fairness goes off the charts in the NT, thanks to the blood sacrifice of the Lord Himself.
Bowsinger I think we have more than proven the alleged contradictions do not exist with every alleged contradiction that we have addressed with you. If you are not willing to see that, then more of the same will not profit you. I have not seen you post anything that cannot be reconciled. It comes down to what you are willing to believe and not what is honestly believable. One thing you are bringing to the forefront about the Bible is that it typically presents both sides of an issue so we can see it from all angles. A person gets very skewed in their perspectives when they always look at an issue from one vantage point. Are you willing to look at evidence from an honest perspective? Are you able to step outside your skepticism? Do you honestly seek truth? A child cannot learn from their teacher unless they first accept that their teacher has knowledge to impart. You will never find truth until you first accept that their is truth to be known...
You need to take a few more seconds and not change the meaning of "iniquity"
The Bible states that God will and God won't pass Stuff on to the children.
You are the one who doesn't understand it. Since the son isn't going to "carry" the iniquity of his father, maybe it means that he won't "put up" with it.
Bow, maybe the Lord gives us a clue. One can believe one thing and another can believe another thing, regarding some particular thing. Believers get to be, think and feel different about different things.
They can all be forgiven and saved if they just believe the basics of the Good News and Jesus Christ.
Personal Injury “…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25 “…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39
I will address this one yet because it represents a different category from the others.
Under the OT judicial law a wronged person could seek redress with an eye for an eye etc... In the NT Jesus introduced a change in conduct and told His followers not to seek the eye for an eye because under the new covenant of grace we have all been forgiven much and if we have experienced forgiveness we also should be willing to extend it to others--even at a loss. Matt. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The NT still upholds the right of the government to bear the sword in punishment of evil but Jesus is teaching His followers to forgive and not to always demand justice for every personal offense. But again, this does not in any way limit the government's right to punish lawbreakers.
Rom.13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Personal Injury “…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25 “…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39
I will address this one yet because it represents a different category from the others.
Under the OT judicial law a wronged person could seek redress with an eye for an eye etc... In the NT Jesus introduced a change in conduct and told His followers not to seek the eye for an eye because under the new covenant of grace we have all been forgiven much and if we have experienced forgiveness we also should be willing to extend it to others--even at a loss. Matt. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The NT still upholds the right of the government to bear the sword in punishment of evil but Jesus is teaching His followers to forgive and not to always demand justice for every personal offense. But again, this does not in any way limit the government's right to punish lawbreakers.
Rom.13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
So is the Son of God correcting what his Father said?
Many contradictions lay between the Old and the New Testaments. I have already stated that my main issue is the differences between God of the Old and Jesus of the New.
The OT anticipated a change of covenant and conduct in the NT ...
Deut.18:17 Then the LORD said to me, “They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 And I will hold accountable anyone who does not listen to My words that that prophet speaks in My name. 20 But if any prophet dares to speak a message in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or to speak in the name of other gods, that prophet must be put to death.”
Jer.31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
A prophet and a new covenant are both identified as coming and as the full and final revelation of God's will for mankind. The first covenant was always considered a temporary one. The first covenant was primarily a national one with Israel to preserve and protect them as a nation until the advent of the Messiah. The first was a covenant/law of works that served to distinguish the Jewish race and set them apart from the pagan world and to identify their faith with the one true God. The 2nd covenant was intended for the whole world as a covenant of grace to bring salvation to all people by the advent of Jesus Christ. Today we have two witnesses on earth to the truth of the Scriptures--the Jews and the Church--one for each covenant.
A simple illustration is: We primarily teach young children by rules of do and do not because they cannot understand everything. As they get older we move from the law of dos and do nots to teaching them responsibilities and life principles. When they are young we discipline their errors to guide them and as they age we instruct, but give them grace to learn on their own. We explain the benefits and consequences of choices but we do not force them to do the right thing. We give them unconditional love and grace and are open to a future relationship of mentoring. When they go astray and come back we forgive them and encourage them to do right. This a basic illustrative primer of God's dealings with man--beginning with law and moving to grace and relationship.
Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
To all In reflecting back I think there were times that I could have stated my thoughts more charitably. I apologize for not doing this. I only want to provide what I offered as a benefit and don't want to disrespect anyone. I hope that the interchange here will be helpful in some way to those who participated or who are silently reading. Blessings to all.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence.
Initially you claimed it as FACT, now you say its merely based on evidence.
Evidence does not necessarily amount to Proof or established Fact, and that can be seen in courtrooms across the land on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty.
I rely on a lack of proof being provided by christians , and because of such lack , also the absence of establishedFact.
Our faith is based on indisputable evidence. The Bible defines our faith as such: [quote]Now faith is the reality (or assurance or substance as some translations say) of what is hoped for, the proof (or evidence as some translations say) of what is not seen Heb.11:1
You earlier cited proof based FACT being the basis from the start [that the resurrection took place], yet there's no biblical mention of it in that definition of faith.
and how do you substantiate proof that cannot be seen?
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence.
who decides what genuinely constitutes reasonable evidence?
and just because you adopt a 'strong belief' approach doesn't give purported evidence any extra weight.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
... Unbelief is based upon blind faith that refuses to acknowledge the testimony of reasonable evidence because of a strong prejudice against moral absolutes.
again its what you choose as a Christian to deem a reasonable evidence, not everybody.
Could you go into a US courtroom today with your evidence and prove/provide establiish fact, that a man died and came back to life 3 days later,.. some 2000+ yrs ago?
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
As for the passage in some copies of Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum it's a 4th century interpolation added by Eusebius.
To all In reflecting back I think there were times that I could have stated my thoughts more charitably. I apologize for not doing this. I only want to provide what I offered as a benefit and don't want to disrespect anyone. I hope that the interchange here will be helpful in some way to those who participated or who are silently reading. Blessings to all.
Seems to me that we have high school graduates trying to explain algebra to petulant and prideful kindergarten children.
Children who insist that their simple copy and paste actions from the algebra book constitute some knowledge of algebra. They can list the equations but simply do not understand them. Indeed, they cannot understand and refuse to accept the fact that their level of knowledge and expertise is quite low.
One oft repeated example of this is a failure to understand the Law and then the fulfillment of the Law. There will be much confusion about this until one understands Matthew 22:37-40..... if one looks it up, pay special attention to verse 40.
I was told one time: “Well, I can tell you and I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.”
They lack discernment but do not see the lack.
I wouldn’t worry too much about offending folks here. After all, this is the internet and this is the Campfire. Also, they would not be here if they didn’t have some interest and that..... I think.... is a good thing.
There are some skeptics that post on these Christian threads that are straightforward in their views and objections. I appreciate much of what Bowsinger posts. He says what he thinks and can usually state his objections. OK.
Others are simply here to inject doubts in the minds of the undecided. Others are simply trolls that post absolute malarkey as undisputed fact. But, they are here and again, I am ok with that.
Discussion and dispute is better than just an echo chamber.
Julian wasn't born until 331ce. He's not a contemporary source for Christ.
Quote
He referenced the Roman census records and he could investigate the story on the basis of the Roman records--that is good proof under any impartial criteria. He had access to more early data than we do.
I don't see that mentioned in the link you provided.
1. we have reasonably indisputable historical evidence from various sources that Jesus was crucified in a public event 2. we have indisputable evidence that some of the early believers "claimed" that He also arose because they were eyewitness of His resurrected body
No, you have not established there premises, and with that, the rest of your argument falls.
But the passage is not about Jesus. The Suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus.
Explain the logic of the Lord laying on Israel the sins of all Israel so that by their stripes Israel might be healed when the context is clearly referencing two separate entities. There is no logic in that in that view.
It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are not predicting things that are to happen hundreds of years in advance; they are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures; In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah. In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be. If the passage is not referring to the messiah, and is not referring to someone in the future who is going to suffer – who is it talking about? Here there really should be very little ambiguity. As I mentioned, this particular passage – Isaiah 53 – is one of four servant songs of Second Isaiah. And so the question is, who does Second Isaiah himself indicate that the servant is? A careful reading of the passages makes the identification quite clear: “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen” (44:1); “Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant” (44:21); “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (49:3).
Skepticims predates Socrates. It goes back until at least the 5th century bce, so it actually has a longer track record than Christianity.
Quote
Skepticism begins with the fall of man into sin when Adam and Eve were tempted by --Did God really say ...? However prior to that Adam walked with God and thus knew better.
From a purely historical point of view our current beliefs trace back to the advent of human history and the introduction of the 10 commandments and their morality that we still embrace.
Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, flood, and timeline of Bishop Ussher?
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence.
yet you have Christians with these mindsets:
Originally Posted by jaguartx
He said have faith, not evidence. ...
Originally Posted by TF49
It does not matter what YOU think or believe.
Originally Posted by TF49
Others are simply trolls that post absolute malarkey as undisputed fact.
you mean like your marlarkey [bold] statement above?...how many Christians of 'faith' would actually agree with you that ones particular beliefs don't matter?
Originally Posted by TF49
Others are simply here to inject doubts in the minds of the undecided. ..
Id be more reasonable and say they present differing more rational arguments for the individual to consider/weigh up, if they so wish.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Peter as an eye-witness and apostle affirms the writings of Paul as reliable and the equal of other Scriptures. 2Pet.3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Second Peter wasn't written by Peter. Of all the letters, it's the most widely accepted as a later FORGERY.
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence.
then you have Christians with this mindset :
Originally Posted by TF49
It does not matter what YOU think or believe.
Originally Posted by TF49
Others are simply trolls that post absolute malarkey as undisputed fact.
you mean like your bold statement above?...how many Christians of 'faith' would actually agree with you?
Originally Posted by TF49
Others are simply here to inject doubts in the minds of the undecided. ..
Id be more reasonable and say they present different more rational arguments for the individual to consider if they wish.
I addressed this before. Go back and read it again.
Related..... what God thinks....and what God thinks about YOU is more important than what you think or even believe. You or I can believe in error. One can think he is ok with God but in fact may not be. What God thinks about YOU is paramount.
Now, I fully expect that you will either not understand this or you may choose not to understand. In either case, your response will show that indeed, you do not understand.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Peter as an eye-witness and apostle affirms the writings of Paul as reliable and the equal of other Scriptures. 2Pet.3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Second Peter wasn't written by Peter. Of all the letters, it's the most widely accepted as a later FORGERY.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
[quote=Thunderstick][quote=DBT]There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence.
then you have Christians with this mindset :
Originally Posted by TF49
It does not matter what YOU think or believe.
Originally Posted by TF49
Others are simply trolls that post absolute malarkey as undisputed fact.
you mean like your bold statement above?...how many Christians of 'faith' would actually agree with you?
Originally Posted by TF49
Others are simply here to inject doubts in the minds of the undecided. ..
Id be more reasonable and say they present different more rational arguments for the individual to consider if they wish.
I addressed this before. Go back and read it again.
Related..... what God thinks....and what God thinks about YOU is more important than what you think or even believe. You or I can believe in error. One can think he is ok with God but in fact may not be. What God thinks about YOU is paramount.
Now, I fully expect that you will either not understand this or you may choose not to understand. In either case, your response will show that indeed, you do not understand.
You are presuming a god exists. If not gods exist, Starman's thoughts on the subject are much more relevant than those of a non-existent entity.
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence.
then you have Christians with this mindset :
Originally Posted by TF49
It does not matter what YOU think or believe.
Originally Posted by TF49
Others are simply trolls that post absolute malarkey as undisputed fact.
you mean like your bold statement above?...how many Christians of 'faith' would actually agree with you?
Originally Posted by TF49
Others are simply here to inject doubts in the minds of the undecided. ..
Id be more reasonable and say they present different more rational arguments for the individual to consider if they wish.
I addressed this before. Go back and read it again.
Related..... what God thinks....and what God thinks about YOU is more important than what you think or even believe. You or I can believe in error. One can think he is ok with God but in fact may not be. What God thinks about YOU is paramount.
Now, I fully expect that you will either not understand this or you may choose not to understand. In either case, your response will show that indeed, you do not understand.
You are presuming a god exists. If not gods exist, Starman's thoughts on the subject are much more relevant than those of a non-existent entity.
Of course I believe that God exists. Starman’s comments are ..... well, this is a guy trying to be relevant in discussions about God and Christianity but exhibits little knowledge ..... and his comments are by and large irrelevant. Remember the “Pantera” nonsense?
You may find Starman to be a kindred spirit. Seems both of you do not believe in God..... of course you will say there is no proof of God. This is a tragedy.
I addressed this before. Go back and read it again.
LOL...you sure did, you addressed it by altering/backtracking on your original 'categorical' stance;
Originally Posted by TF49
It does not matter what YOU think or believe.
followed by;
Originally Posted by TF49
What you believe about God is less important than what God sees in you.
Originally Posted by TF49
You or I can believe in error. One can think he is ok with God but in fact may not be. What God thinks about YOU is paramount.
What God thinks of the wide and varied Christian beliefs of individuals is total guesswork on the part of humans, lest you have access to Gods mind. ..do you know for certain what God thinks of You or anyone else?
Yet you claim to be one of those enlighten with the 'truth' deluded into thinking you are somehow appointed to help people., much like some other self-proclaimed 'genuine' christians on this campfire...
you are special and unique and set yourself apart from others because you have told yourself you are so.. .......hilarious.
Originally Posted by TF49
Just trying to help you see. You do a lot of internet searching and you make plenty of comment about Jesus and Christianity but you seem to actually have very little knowledge or insight into truth.
I addressed this before. Go back and read it again.
LOl...you sure did, you addressed it by altering/backtracking on your original 'categorical' stance;
Originally Posted by TF49
It does not matter what YOU think or believe.
followed by;
Originally Posted by TF49
What you believe about God is less important than what God sees in you.
Originally Posted by TF49
You or I can believe in error. One can think he is ok with God but in fact may not be. What God thinks about YOU is paramount.
What God thinks of the wide and varied Christian beliefs of individuals is total guesswork on the part of humans, lest you have access to Gods mind. ..do you know for certain what God thinks of You for anyone else?
you claim to be one of those enlighten with the 'truth' deluded into thinking you are somehow appointed to help people., much like some other self-proclaimed 'genuine' christians on this campfire...
you are special and unique and set yourself apart from others because you have told yourself you are so.. .......hilarious.
Yep, still in kindergarten and claiming to understand algebra.
I’ll step in it again and ask you a couple of questions:
Meh, the skeptics that post here are as self assured and self righteous as others. They feel free to show and stomp on others beliefs.
Nobody is trying to force you to change your mind, you are still free to chose your beliefs as are everybody else.
Reasonable and rational people see this thread simply as a discussion//contribution of differing views.
Originally Posted by TF49
Ok Starman, you win.
So you reduce the subject discussion of your God first to mathematics , then to a contest?
I thought competition was for things like sport and the work place, not spiritual matters. but hey,... many congregations across the globe can't resist their one-upmanship approach to GOD.
Hes stupid enough to think Jesus walked the earth giving the Good News knowing it wasnt true and hoping to hoodwink millions of people to spend billions over the ages supporting churches and pastors without seeking financial gain for himself.
Sheesh.
What was Jesus to get out of life for his charade other than crucifiction? Dumbasses never consider these things.
Hey rimfire, Jesus only wanted to pull the wool over on guys like me,
Or, "If it were not so i would not have told you so".
I have no doubt Jesus of Nazerath was a man who did walk the Earth. I have no doubt that he had a mother named Mary. And I have no doubt that both were tools used by a faction of the Jewish Priesthood bent of splintering The Church and taking it in a new, more benevolent direction.
Either Mary was impregnated by these Jewish Priests, who later confirmed her virginity, or else the entire "virgin birth" was a myth born of whole cloth used to impress superstitious peoples and gain converts. Heck, we impregnate cows everyday with a straw small enough to leave the hymen intact.
David Copperfield could easily replicate any of the "miracles" performed by Jesus in front of illiterate, peasant crowds. Modern fakirs heal people in front of crowds quite often, and none of them are God incarnate.
And as far as the man dying, coming back to life, and disappearing again. That is certainly not an illusion which would be difficult to replicate in any time period. body doubles? twin brothers? possibilities abound.
Many thanks to all who participated here. It was fun, respectful and didn’t go too far south like a lot of these type threads do. I have learned a lot.
The truth is the truth, with or without the Bible.
heaven and hell exist in your mind only because you read it in a book, or you started believing someone who told you those places exist.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The death and resurrection story from the very beginning was shared on the basis of fact.
So for christians the resurrection of Jesus is not based on their FAITH / BELIEF..? If christians knew it as FACT , why would they need to trust in their FAITH..?
def. of faith: = strong belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
PROOF is needed to demonstrate a claim as FACT ..Thus FAITH cannot be FACT based, because facts require proof - if you have proof establishing fact ,then its not faith.
Christians with their lack of proof thus does not permit them to establish fact, and if they did have such it would nullify their need for faith. Christians overwhelmingly rely on their faith simply because faith [or beliefs] don't require facts, evidence, proof or truth.
There is some circular reasoning here. On the same criteria you cannot prove that Jesus never rose from the dead. You were not there--you did not guard the tomb to confirm the presence of the body till decay. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty. Furthermore your approach would invalidate all history as fact because you cannot personally validate the events as an eye-witness. However on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history. They look at the evidence and try to make reasonable conclusions and then they teach history.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence. We have a strong faith in the certainty of because of the reasonably indisputable evidence from the historical record.
Likewise: 1. we have reasonably indisputable historical evidence from various sources that Jesus was crucified in a public event 2. we have indisputable evidence that some of the early believers "claimed" that He also arose because they were eyewitness of His resurrected body 3. they spread the stories of their resurrection claims throughout the whole world 4. the world was hostile to the resurrection claims of the early Christians 5. the apostles and early Christians were put to death for making these claims and promoting the teachings of Christ 6. the early Christians did not have the favor or aid of the government to protect their faith 7. the story continued to spread and grow and could not be dismissed 8. all the events surrounding the death and crucifixion were in the gospel accounts and could be investigated and disproven 9. the critics and enemies of Christianity were never successful in refuting those claims and the church grew 10. Diocletion ordered all the Scriptures apprehended and burnt and Christians executed if they would not recant their faith 11. But the story grew to the point where the succeeding Roman Emperor Constantine officially embraced Christianity. While this also began to introduce some corruptions into the church it still establishes the fact that the basic story of Jesus was validated on the basis of evidence. 12. Emporer Julian comes along and tries to make intellectual arguments to dismiss the resurrection of Christ. His arguments fail and the story grows even further.
Friends, in the early ages of Christianity when it was being persecuted, everyone had access to the data needed to refute the resurrection claims--more data than we have today. Eye-witnesses could be interviewed, stories of the gospels could be investigated, the public crucifixion under Pontius Pilate could be verified. The man Jesus was crucified by the Romans and guarded because Jesus said in advance He would rise again--what happened to the body? The only thing the critics needed to do was prove that Christ never arose.
Our faith is based on indisputable evidence. The Bible defines our faith as such:
Quote
Now faith is the reality (or assurance or substance as some translations say) of what is hoped for, the proof (or evidence as some translations say) of what is not seen Heb.11:1
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence. Unbelief is based upon blind faith that refuses to acknowledge the testimony of reasonable evidence because of a strong prejudice against moral absolutes.
All these things you state about early Christian teachings and writings could also be stated for The Book of Morman. Smith had no backing. The gov't and all established religions tried to stamp out his teachings. He was killed for his teachings. His followers were driven out into the wilderness.
Yet they persisted and prospered. Does this make their beliefs true?
Then we could ask the same questions for the teachings of Ellen G White. Was she a true prophet of God?
.. Furthermore your approach would invalidate all history as fact because you cannot personally validate the events as an eye-witness. However on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history. They look at the evidence and try to make reasonable conclusions and then they teach history.
My approach requires proof to establish fact...and there's substantial physical evidence, proof and fact - that eg; WW1 and WW2 actually happened even though I did not eye-witness those wars taking place.
The Romans were in the UK, Africa, etc ,as a matter of fact. proven by the combination of Roman records, remaining Roman structures and vast number of recovered relics they left behind from 400 yrs of occupation.
...so how does my approach ' invalidate all history as fact'..??
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.... on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history.
I would say professors use conventional overwhelming proof to establish fact, not subjective religious type faith. we know the Romans existed and where they occupied, and the proof is available here and now , not locked up in some mysterious faith yet to reveal its alleged proof.
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
I'm a little late with this, but here goes. Tell me what's wrong with contradictions.
Contradictions happen when two propositions (or more) are logically not compatible, therefore both cannot logically be true. In the simplest terms, if an object is described as being entirely white, it cannot be described as being entirely black....one description or the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
If God is described as a God of Love, who has no jealousy. who is good to all, love your enemy, etc, and God is described as being a jealous God, punishing generations for the sins of their fathers, ordering slaughter, killing guilty and innocent alike, etc.... both descriptions cannot be true, it can one or the other....or God is bipolar.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence.
Initially you claimed it as FACT, now you say its merely based on evidence.
Evidence does not necessarily amount to Proof or established Fact, and that can be seen in courtrooms across the land on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty.
I rely on a lack of proof being provided by christians , and because of such lack , also the absence of establishedFact.
no proof = no established fact.
How are the facts of history established? Are they not based on the laws of evidence? No evidence equals no facts--good evidence establishes the facts. This is not a novel idea. Webster--Definition of evidence 1a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
In summary the resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history that is established on the basis of good evidence. The denial of the resurrection is not based on good evidence, and therefore is not a factual conclusion, but rather represents a prejudice against the facts.
Our faith is based on indisputable evidence. The Bible defines our faith as such:
Quote
Now faith is the reality (or assurance or substance as some translations say) of what is hoped for, the proof (or evidence as some translations say) of what is not seen Heb.11:1
You earlier cited proof based FACT being the basis from the start [that the resurrection took place], yet there's no biblical mention of it in that definition of faith.
and how do you substantiate proof that cannot be seen?
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Our faith is a strong belief based on reasonably indisputable evidence.
who decides what genuinely constitutes reasonable evidence?
and just because you adopt a 'strong belief' approach doesn't give purported evidence any extra weight.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
... Unbelief is based upon blind faith that refuses to acknowledge the testimony of reasonable evidence because of a strong prejudice against moral absolutes.
again its what you choose as a Christian to deem a reasonable evidence, not everybody.
Could you go into a US courtroom today with your evidence and prove/provide establiish fact, that a man died and came back to life 3 days later,.. some 2000+ yrs ago?
The verse cited establishes the foundational premise that Christians faith is based on evidence regarding the things which cannot be seen or duplicated. This is certainly in line with the recognized laws of evidence that are used today. The Bible also makes the evidence and fact claim regarding the resurrection: Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them* forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Reasonable evidence is based upon an honest and impartial inquiry according to the laws of evidence from which the facts may be ascertained and established. There are always those who will say in most cases that there is not enough evidence if they do not like where the evidence points.
So to answer your question as to whether I could establish the fact of the resurrection from the laws of evidence in a courtroom--absolutely yes if we can agree to the laws of evidence that are already established and we do not contrive new ones. I would accept the opportunity to publicly share the evidence for my faith based upon the established laws of evidence.
In fact this issue was already addressed by the man, Simon Greeleaf, who was the cofounder of the Harvard school of law and wrote the laws of evidence that we use today. This what he said, after exhaustive research applying the laws of evidence to the gospel accounts of Jesus:
In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.
...In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge.
...All Christianity asks of men on this subject, is that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat the evidence of other things;; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth..
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
As for the passage in some copies of Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum it's a 4th century interpolation added by Eusebius.
There are variations in Josephus' account with some details of the Biblical record, which indicate that they would not very likely have been a Christian interpolation. Early Christian writers actually disputed some of Josephus’ details as inaccurate--which shows they did not interpolate them.
Questions for the skeptic: Why is it that of the 120 Greek and 170 Latin extant manuscripts, the only copies which survived have the Testimonium Flavianum in them? How did an interpolator make sure all the other copies were destroyed and only the ones with interpolations survive? Furthermore at least 5 early church writers reference this passage to skeptics. Why would they reference this passage if the passage itself was in question or if other copies existed at that time without these passages?
To date every skeptic to which I have addressed these questions ... the result has been -- NO EVIDENCE BASED ANSWER.
Hes stupid enough to think Jesus walked the earth giving the Good News knowing it wasnt true and hoping to hoodwink millions of people to spend billions over the ages supporting churches and pastors without seeking financial gain for himself.
Sheesh.
What was Jesus to get out of life for his charade other than crucifiction? Dumbasses never consider these things.
Hey rimfire, Jesus only wanted to pull the wool over on guys like me,
Or, "If it were not so i would not have told you so".
I have no doubt Jesus of Nazerath was a man who did walk the Earth. I have no doubt that he had a mother named Mary. And I have no doubt that both were tools used by a faction of the Jewish Priesthood bent of splintering The Church and taking it in a new, more benevolent direction.
Either Mary was impregnated by these Jewish Priests, who later confirmed her virginity, or else the entire "virgin birth" was a myth born of whole cloth used to impress superstitious peoples and gain converts. Heck, we impregnate cows everyday with a straw small enough to leave the hymen intact.
David Copperfield could easily replicate any of the "miracles" performed by Jesus in front of illiterate, peasant crowds. Modern fakirs heal people in front of crowds quite often, and none of them are God incarnate.
And as far as the man dying, coming back to life, and disappearing again. That is certainly not an illusion which would be difficult to replicate in any time period. body doubles? twin brothers? possibilities abound.
Interesting premises, but based on pure speculations ... So how would people at that time impregnate a young woman leaving her hymen intact? Why would a Jewish priest do this if it worked against their own teachings? Or why would they not simply say later that I impregnated her to dispel the mystery of the virgin birth? Jesus did not merely perform His miracles in front of illiterate peasants, but before all classes of men--even the most learned of the day who were trying to trap Him. He performed miracles before skeptics and in a hostile atmosphere. Why did not his enemies merely expose His charade instead of crucifying Him ... or at least expose His charade afterwards? The Romans were not opposed to a magic shows so why would they persecute Christianity? I'm sorry, but there is no logic in this reasoning.
Hes stupid enough to think Jesus walked the earth giving the Good News knowing it wasnt true and hoping to hoodwink millions of people to spend billions over the ages supporting churches and pastors without seeking financial gain for himself.
Sheesh.
What was Jesus to get out of life for his charade other than crucifiction? Dumbasses never consider these things.
Hey rimfire, Jesus only wanted to pull the wool over on guys like me,
Or, "If it were not so i would not have told you so".
I have no doubt Jesus of Nazerath was a man who did walk the Earth. I have no doubt that he had a mother named Mary. And I have no doubt that both were tools used by a faction of the Jewish Priesthood bent of splintering The Church and taking it in a new, more benevolent direction.
Either Mary was impregnated by these Jewish Priests, who later confirmed her virginity, or else the entire "virgin birth" was a myth born of whole cloth used to impress superstitious peoples and gain converts. Heck, we impregnate cows everyday with a straw small enough to leave the hymen intact.
David Copperfield could easily replicate any of the "miracles" performed by Jesus in front of illiterate, peasant crowds. Modern fakirs heal people in front of crowds quite often, and none of them are God incarnate.
And as far as the man dying, coming back to life, and disappearing again. That is certainly not an illusion which would be difficult to replicate in any time period. body doubles? twin brothers? possibilities abound.
The biggest problem with all of this is that the alleged perpetrators of the hoax were willing to die pretty uncomfortable deaths for the lie.....all of them. The followers of Jesus were not "Jewish priests bent on a more benevolent direction" but were in fact Jewish zealots who wanted to get the Romans off their asses and thought Jesus was going to do it. Jews to this day have never been about being inclusive. They see themselves as an exclusive club and don't proselytize. The rational reaction from this group of people to their Messiah being crucified would have been to either give up or throw in with the next guy claiming to be the Messiah...not to attempt to start a new religion about a failed Messiah promising no earthly rewards....just persecution. I'd say if they faked it, human nature being what it is, they would have spread the gospel with violence like the Muslims.....or the Catholic Church of the middle ages.
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
I'm a little late with this, but here goes. Tell me what's wrong with contradictions.
Contradictions happen when two propositions (or more) are logically not compatible, therefore both cannot logically be true. In the simplest terms, if an object is described as being entirely white, it cannot be described as being entirely black....one description or the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
If God is described as a God of Love, who has no jealousy. who is good to all, love your enemy, etc, and God is described as being a jealous God, punishing generations for the sins of their fathers, ordering slaughter, killing guilty and innocent alike, etc.... both descriptions cannot be true, it can one or the other....or God is bipolar.
Is it possible there is a third reason these verses seem to contradict each other? Even in the limited books in the Bible there is a hint of something else going on. One of the hints begins in the Garden and the event that happened between the Serpent and Eve, the second hint is the lineage difference between Adams and Eve's. Not only do the "don't believe them books" fill in the blanks, but so do the Jewish and Islamic teachings. Limiting ourselves to only the 66 books limits our knowledge. One of the Jewish teachings concerning the first 2 verses of Genesis shows that God created the Earth, but chaos (lucifer added his creation to it) took over and He was then forced to renew or recreate the Earth again. The "noncanonized" books along with Hebrew teachings and the Quran point to this. These writings are "Religious/Christian" writings, then you have the many other "mythical" books and archaeology findings pointing to the same stories. There are many cities and stories labeled as untrue or myth that have recently been unearthed and proven as true, but Religious teachers still want to label as untrue by using the term myth, such as Roman myth or greek myth, always failing to expose the other myth..........Hebrew myth. But what I propose is that none of them are untrue and that mythology is nothing more than another word for history.
My approach requires proof to establish fact...and there's substantial physical evidence, proof and fact - that eg; WW1 and WW2 actually happened even though I did not eye-witness those wars taking place.
The Romans were in the UK, Africa, etc ,as a matter of fact. proven by the combination of Roman records, remaining Roman structures and vast number of recovered relics they left behind from 400 yrs of occupation.
...so how does my approach ' invalidate all history as fact'..??
Because on one hand you appeal to Roman records but on the other hand you dismiss Roman records. 3 Roman historians speak of Christ. Here is Emperor Julian's testimony regarding the census record: Even Jesus, who was proclaimed among you, was one of Caesar's subjects. And if you do not believe me I will prove it a little later, or rather let me simply assert it now. However, you admit that with his father and mother he registered his name in the governorship of Cyrenius.
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
I'm a little late with this, but here goes. Tell me what's wrong with contradictions.
Contradictions happen when two propositions (or more) are logically not compatible, therefore both cannot logically be true. In the simplest terms, if an object is described as being entirely white, it cannot be described as being entirely black....one description or the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
If God is described as a God of Love, who has no jealousy. who is good to all, love your enemy, etc, and God is described as being a jealous God, punishing generations for the sins of their fathers, ordering slaughter, killing guilty and innocent alike, etc.... both descriptions cannot be true, it can one or the other....or God is bipolar.
And these were already shown as complimentary and not contradictory when read in context.
Julian wasn't born until 331ce. He's not a contemporary source for Christ.
Quote
He referenced the Roman census records and he could investigate the story on the basis of the Roman records--that is good proof under any impartial criteria. He had access to more early data than we do.
I don't see that mentioned in the link you provided.
Even Jesus, who was proclaimed among you, was one of Caesar's subjects. And if you do not believe me I will prove it a little later, or rather let me simply assert it now. However, you admit that with his father and mother he registered his name in the governorship of Cyrenius.
But the passage is not about Jesus. The Suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus.
Explain the logic of the Lord laying on Israel the sins of all Israel so that by their stripes Israel might be healed when the context is clearly referencing two separate entities. There is no logic in that in that view.
It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are not predicting things that are to happen hundreds of years in advance; they are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures; In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah. In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be. If the passage is not referring to the messiah, and is not referring to someone in the future who is going to suffer – who is it talking about? Here there really should be very little ambiguity. As I mentioned, this particular passage – Isaiah 53 – is one of four servant songs of Second Isaiah. And so the question is, who does Second Isaiah himself indicate that the servant is? A careful reading of the passages makes the identification quite clear: “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen” (44:1); “Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant” (44:21); “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (49:3).
Some of the prophecies concerning world empires and the Messiah are certainly reaching centuries into the future. With this as your starting premise everything else falls short of making your point.
The Hebrew is using a singular masculine pronoun to speak of one male individual--a man of sorrows--someone whom God assigned to bear all the sins of Israel--the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Messiah is spoken of many times and in many passages without the usage of the term Messiah because He is described in many ways by many different terms.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Peter as an eye-witness and apostle affirms the writings of Paul as reliable and the equal of other Scriptures. 2Pet.3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Second Peter wasn't written by Peter. Of all the letters, it's the most widely accepted as a later FORGERY.
You will need to provide evidence for this because it goes against the testimony of early witnesses and the current consensus of impartial scholarship.
More legal inquiries into the resurrection evidence by leading legal men,
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, observed that an “overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence”21 and that “His Resurrection has led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond dispute....”22 (cf., Thomas Sherlock’s Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which places the Resurrection in a legally argued forum and in the words of lawyer Irwin Linton, “will give anyone so reading it the comfortable assurance that he knows the utmost that can be said against the proof of the central fact of our faith and also how utterly every such attack can be met and answered.”23 At the end of the legal battle one understands why, “The jury returned a verdict in favor of the testimony establishing the fact of Christ’s resurrection.”24) Irwin H. Linton was a Washington, D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he challenges his fellow lawyers “by every acid test known to the law...to examine the case for the Bible just as they would any important matter submitted to their professional attention by a client... .”11 He believes that the evidence for Christianity is “overwhelming” and that at least “three independent and converging lines of proof,” each of which “is conclusive in itself,” establish the truth of the Christian faith.12 Linton observed that “the logical, historical... proofs of... Christianity are so indisputable that I have found them to arrest the surprised attention of just about every man to whom I have presented them....”13 He further argues the Resurrection “is not only so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best proved fact of all history, but it is so supported that it is difficult to conceive of any method or line of proof that it lacks which would make [it] more certain.”14 And that, even among lawyers, “he who does not accept wholeheartedly the evangelical, conservative belief in Christ and the Scriptures has never read, has forgotten, or never been able to weigh—and certainly is utterly unable to refute— the irresistible force of the cumulative evidence upon which such faith rests....”15 He concluded the claims of Christian faith are so well established by such a variety of independent and converging proofs that “it has been said again and again by great lawyers that they cannot but be regarded as proved under the strictest rules of evidence used in the highest American and English courts.”16
J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical School (Christianity Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international repute, eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London.7 In Anderson’s text, Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the standard evidences for the Resurrection and asks, “How, then, can the fact of the resurrection be denied?”8 Anderson further emphasizes, “Lastly, it can be asserted with confidence that men and women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it.”9
John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772–1863) is recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of the British government, Attorney General of Great Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England and elected High Steward of the University of Cambridge. He challenges, “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.”5 Hugo Grotius was a noted “jurist and scholar whose works are of fundamental importance in international law,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. He wrote Latin elegies at the age of eight and entered Leiden University at eleven.6 Considered “the father of international law,” he wrote The Truth of the Christian Religion (1627) in which he legally defended the historical fact of the Resurrection.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Peter as an eye-witness and apostle affirms the writings of Paul as reliable and the equal of other Scriptures. 2Pet.3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Second Peter wasn't written by Peter. Of all the letters, it's the most widely accepted as a later FORGERY.
I did a bit more study on this one as it seems this is one of the latest fads among the skeptics--that 2 Pet was a forgery because: 1. Peter was illiterate 2. Peter could not speak or write in Greek 3. Peter's language was different between the two epistles 4. It was not quoted by the earliest Church writers
Let's weigh those arguments:
1&2. The basis of Peter's illiteracy was that he was fisherman and that he was considered unlearned. The literacy rate among Jews was very high for those times because the fathers were to instruct their children in the law. He was considered uneducated by the standards of scholars Acts 4:13. However they were amazed at what he knew without going to school. Jesus chose him to be one of his witnesses and specifically gave him a prominent position among the others and gave him the Greek name, Peter. Whether Peter could or could not write is really not a relevant issue because many times the author used an amanuenses to dictate their words.
3. I quote .. As Kruger {2} describes, 1 Peter has 542 words, 2 Peter has 399 words, and they share 153 words in common, which means only about 38% are shared words, while 62% are unique to 2 Peter. While this may seem like good evidence for two different writers to some critics, consider that 1Timothy and Titus share about 40% of their words and about 60% are unique to Titus, yet both are believed by critics to have the same author, even if they don’t believe it’s Paul, (which is another debate). And also 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians, both believed by practically all scholars to be written by Paul, share 49% of their words, and 51% are unique to 2 Corinthians. So differences in language are not conclusive, especially when we consider that they really seem to have two very different purposes, 1 Peter to encourage a church during persecution, 2 Peter to address the problem of false teaching. Attributing documents to different authors because of style has always been problematic, many times because of the subjective nature of the argument. For example, in the introduction to each letter, the only parts that match are the second verses of each. Why would a forger only copy this one part? Furthermore, this particular word combination “grace and peace be multiplied” can only be found in these two books in the entire New Testament.
4. I quote ... It’s true that Origen was the first to officially quote the epistle. But he quotes the book six times, and there is no trace of a doubt in his writings that it belongs in the canon of the New Testament. This would not happen casually with some recently composed document. What it means is that by his time the book was widely accepted as authentic. Church father Eusebius listed 2nd Peter along with some other books as “disputed”, the others being James, Jude, and 2 and 3 John. But he clearly indicates that the majority of the church regarded it as authentic. All church fathers after Origen acknowledge that 2nd Peter is canonical. Learned church father Jerome accepted 2nd Peter without hesitation even though he admitted it differed in style from 1 Peter, which he attributed to different scribes employed for each letter. 2nd Peter appears in some early manuscripts such as the P72 Bodmer Papyrus from the 3rd century and in the very authoritative Codex from the 4th century, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, on which many of our modern translations are based. One of the reasons the church fathers in the first 2 centuries may have been reluctant to quote 2nd Peter was because there were many other documents around at that time that were forgeries falsely attributed to Peter, such as the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and others. But the fact that 2nd Peter rose above the rest of these and ultimately gained full acceptance is greatly in its favor. Although the first official quote of 2nd Peter was from Origen, there is evidence for an early date of composition contrary to some critic’s charges. Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) wrote a commentary on 2nd Peter, which unfortunately is now lost. Why would he have written this if the church thought that 2nd Peter was a forgery? [1] Irenaeus (130-200) quotes from Psalm 90:4 in language almost exactly matching 2 Peter 3:8, both deviating widely from the Septuagint translation in almost the exact same places, indicating that Irenaeus may have been quoting directly from 2nd Peter. Justin Martyr (115-165) also may be alluding to 2nd Peter with a passage in his Dialogue with Trypho that matches up with the wording in 2 Peter 2:1. There is evidence that the Apocalypse of Peter written in 110 A.D. depends on 2 Peter, and finally even 1 Clement (written 95-97 A. D.) has two phrases in it that have matches in 2 Peter but are not found in the rest of the New Testament. These phrases are referring to God as “the magnificent glory” (2 Peter 1:17) and “the way of truth” (2 Peter 2:2, also 1 Clement 35:5). It’s unlikely the Greek in these phrases would match so closely when they are both so rarely used. {2}
Congrats to ou TF49. In conversing with AS you have met one of the biggest fools on the 'fire.
JG,
Hope life's treating you well.
Much like you TF's another fine campfire gentleman. We just happen to disagree on this one proposition.
God is good, all the time. Wish you would experience that. You and Idaho fit the biblical definition of a fool. Lot's of nice guys are fools though, congrats.
Bowsinger I think we have more than proven the alleged contradictions do not exist with every alleged contradiction that we have addressed with you. If you are not willing to see that, then more of the same will not profit you. I have not seen you post anything that cannot be reconciled. It comes down to what you are willing to believe and not what is honestly believable. One thing you are bringing to the forefront about the Bible is that it typically presents both sides of an issue so we can see it from all angles. A person gets very skewed in their perspectives when they always look at an issue from one vantage point. Are you willing to look at evidence from an honest perspective? Are you able to step outside your skepticism? Do you honestly seek truth? A child cannot learn from their teacher unless they first accept that their teacher has knowledge to impart. You will never find truth until you first accept that their is truth to be known...
I want to thank you for helping me prove the Bible is riddled with contradictions. I have a lot more of them.
Every one that I have posted and you have responded; you state that there is no contradiction. Then you explain and give reasons for the contradiction.
For example...“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Pet
You responded with a good explanation about the earth being destroyed and than renewed. So the “earth abideth forever” still remains a contradiction.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. Did the authors evolve from God killing children, raining burning sulfur, and genocide to the gentle teachings of Jesus?
You tell me to seek the truth. But I say onto you that the truth in not in you.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
As for the passage in some copies of Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum it's a 4th century interpolation added by Eusebius.
There are variations in Josephus' account with some details of the Biblical record, which indicate that they would not very likely have been a Christian interpolation. Early Christian writers actually disputed some of Josephus’ details as inaccurate--which shows they did not interpolate them.
Questions for the skeptic: Why is it that of the 120 Greek and 170 Latin extant manuscripts, the only copies which survived have the Testimonium Flavianum in them? How did an interpolator make sure all the other copies were destroyed and only the ones with interpolations survive? Furthermore at least 5 early church writers reference this passage to skeptics. Why would they reference this passage if the passage itself was in question or if other copies existed at that time without these passages?
To date every skeptic to which I have addressed these questions ... the result has been -- NO EVIDENCE BASED ANSWER.
Not you're just making stuff up. The passage in question was not referenced. Before the 4th century.
Bowsinger I think we have more than proven the alleged contradictions do not exist with every alleged contradiction that we have addressed with you. If you are not willing to see that, then more of the same will not profit you. I have not seen you post anything that cannot be reconciled. It comes down to what you are willing to believe and not what is honestly believable. One thing you are bringing to the forefront about the Bible is that it typically presents both sides of an issue so we can see it from all angles. A person gets very skewed in their perspectives when they always look at an issue from one vantage point. Are you willing to look at evidence from an honest perspective? Are you able to step outside your skepticism? Do you honestly seek truth? A child cannot learn from their teacher unless they first accept that their teacher has knowledge to impart. You will never find truth until you first accept that their is truth to be known...
I want to thank you for helping me prove the Bible is riddled with contradictions. I have a lot more of them.
Every one that I have posted and you have responded; you state that there is no contradiction. Then you explain and give reasons for the contradiction.
For example...“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Pet
You responded with a good explanation about the earth being destroyed and than renewed. So the “earth abideth forever” still remains a contradiction.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. Did the authors evolve from God killing children, raining burning sulfur, and genocide to the gentle teachings of Jesus?
You tell me to seek the truth. But I say onto you that the truth in not in you.
After 4 examples if you cannot see the contradictions are in your own mind and not the text, then responding to 6 more will only illustrate the same point. Not meaning to be disrespectful but the level you go to try to prove something that cannot be proven only weakens the position you hold. The contradictions that I addressed are not very difficult to resolve--it only takes some context, honest inquiry, and common sense.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence.
Initially you claimed it as FACT, now you say its merely based on evidence.
Evidence does not necessarily amount to Proof or established Fact, and that can be seen in courtrooms across the land on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty.
I rely on a lack of proof being provided by christians , and because of such lack , also the absence of establishedFact.
no proof = no established fact.
How are the facts of history established? Are they not based on the laws of evidence? No evidence equals no facts--good evidence establishes the facts. This is not a novel idea. Webster--Definition of evidence 1a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
In summary the resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history that is established on the basis of good evidence. The denial of the resurrection is not based on good evidence, and therefore is not a factual conclusion, but rather represents a prejudice against the facts.
Testimony alone is not necessarily evidence. The person giving an account of an event may be mistaken, deluded, lying, etc, which is why verifiable evidence is necessary.
We don't have verifiable evidence in the bible. We have what anonymous authors, copying from older material and word of mouth transmission, tell us.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
As for the passage in some copies of Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum it's a 4th century interpolation added by Eusebius.
There are variations in Josephus' account with some details of the Biblical record, which indicate that they would not very likely have been a Christian interpolation. Early Christian writers actually disputed some of Josephus’ details as inaccurate--which shows they did not interpolate them.
Questions for the skeptic: Why is it that of the 120 Greek and 170 Latin extant manuscripts, the only copies which survived have the Testimonium Flavianum in them? How did an interpolator make sure all the other copies were destroyed and only the ones with interpolations survive? Furthermore at least 5 early church writers reference this passage to skeptics. Why would they reference this passage if the passage itself was in question or if other copies existed at that time without these passages?
To date every skeptic to which I have addressed these questions ... the result has been -- NO EVIDENCE BASED ANSWER.
Not you're just making stuff up. The passage in question was not referenced. Before the 4th century.
Now I repeat the same answer because it stands and I will add a quote from an early church writer, Origen before the 4th century as he lived from 184-253 AD.
Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter 47 I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.
This quotation illustrates that Josephus is writing about John the Baptist, Jesus, and James the brother of Jesus, thus establishing Jesus' existence as a man. Note that Celsus is also quoted as accepting Jesus as a man of history. While this citation is not the Testimonium Flavianum per se, it certainly validates the essentials points of the Testimonium Flavianum by indicating that Jesus was an historical figure who was put to death. The part on whether he did notable deeds or not, is not the main the point in question--because the main point is whether Josephus testifies of the existence of Christ -- which he does.
Additionally, the part that Origen quotes is the same as what has survived today. So again there is no hard evidence of interpolation--this is merely an unproven assumption.
Eusebius cites the Testimonium Flavianum in 324 and uses the exact wording that we have today. Do you really think the TF did not exist in the preceding century before he quoted it? Do you really think this wording only existed in his manuscript?
I'm still challenging you to explain how all the original copies were destroyed, and how only the interpolated ones survived with the same reading, and why there isn't any record of the interpolation.
I'm not expecting you to accept the challenge and provide the evidence, because if it existed, someone would have provided it already.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence.
Initially you claimed it as FACT, now you say its merely based on evidence.
Evidence does not necessarily amount to Proof or established Fact, and that can be seen in courtrooms across the land on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty.
I rely on a lack of proof being provided by christians , and because of such lack , also the absence of establishedFact.
no proof = no established fact.
How are the facts of history established? Are they not based on the laws of evidence? No evidence equals no facts--good evidence establishes the facts. This is not a novel idea. Webster--Definition of evidence 1a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
In summary the resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history that is established on the basis of good evidence. The denial of the resurrection is not based on good evidence, and therefore is not a factual conclusion, but rather represents a prejudice against the facts.
Testimony alone is not necessarily evidence. The person giving an account of an event may be mistaken, deluded, lying, etc, which is why verifiable evidence is necessary.
We don't have verifiable evidence in the bible. We have what anonymous authors, copying from older material and word of mouth transmission, tell us.
Sir you are really showing desperation here--every court would examine eye-witness accounts and testimonies to establish evidence--which is what the dictionary says. You have to create your own laws of evidence in order to dismiss the evidence--no reasonable person would accept your methodology. If you had a good argument you would not resort to these measures.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.
Well, the illustrious Bart Ehrman wrote a book.... “Did Jesus Exist?” One comment attributed to him was:
“...whatever you think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.”
There is much ado about Josephus and I do not seem to appreciate it.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence.
Initially you claimed it as FACT, now you say its merely based on evidence.
Evidence does not necessarily amount to Proof or established Fact, and that can be seen in courtrooms across the land on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty.
I rely on a lack of proof being provided by christians , and because of such lack , also the absence of establishedFact.
no proof = no established fact.
How are the facts of history established? Are they not based on the laws of evidence? No evidence equals no facts--good evidence establishes the facts. This is not a novel idea. Webster--Definition of evidence 1a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
In summary the resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history that is established on the basis of good evidence. The denial of the resurrection is not based on good evidence, and therefore is not a factual conclusion, but rather represents a prejudice against the facts.
Testimony alone is not necessarily evidence. The person giving an account of an event may be mistaken, deluded, lying, etc, which is why verifiable evidence is necessary.
We don't have verifiable evidence in the bible. We have what anonymous authors, copying from older material and word of mouth transmission, tell us.
Well, Jesus asked us to be “witnesses” and provide testimony. The Holy Spirit is the agent that provides “proof.” But, you do have free will and you certainly can reject all you want.
And, it may be true that you “don’t have verifiable evidence.” Didn’t Jesus say that some would not believe even one who came back from the dead?
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
I'm a little late with this, but here goes. Tell me what's wrong with contradictions.
Contradictions happen when two propositions (or more) are logically not compatible, therefore both cannot logically be true. In the simplest terms, if an object is described as being entirely white, it cannot be described as being entirely black....one description or the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
If God is described as a God of Love, who has no jealousy. who is good to all, love your enemy, etc, and God is described as being a jealous God, punishing generations for the sins of their fathers, ordering slaughter, killing guilty and innocent alike, etc.... both descriptions cannot be true, it can one or the other....or God is bipolar.
Where do you get the idea God has no jealousy? God tells us "My name is Jealous because I am a jealous God." (Exodus 34) You are anthropomorphizing God. You, and most including Christians, are missing the concept that God is [i]Infinite. He fills the universe. Even the "space" between electrons and proton. That means when He loves He loves infinitely. Consider He set a rule that death is the punishment for sin and man's death cannot atone for his own sin. That's His rule and we can't do a thing to change it. So He sent His only Begotten Son to die for that punishment as a propitiation for all who will accept His Gift of His Son. When He hates He hates infinitely. Consider the Flood of Noah's time. Beautiful virgins, cute kittens, cuddly puppies, mean old men and caring mothers, lions, tigers, bears and yes even dinosaurs were all treated the same. We find their fossils in water born sediments all over the world.
Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred. We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence.
Initially you claimed it as FACT, now you say its merely based on evidence.
Evidence does not necessarily amount to Proof or established Fact, and that can be seen in courtrooms across the land on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty.
I rely on a lack of proof being provided by christians , and because of such lack , also the absence of establishedFact.
no proof = no established fact.
How are the facts of history established? Are they not based on the laws of evidence? No evidence equals no facts--good evidence establishes the facts. This is not a novel idea. Webster--Definition of evidence 1a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
In summary the resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history that is established on the basis of good evidence. The denial of the resurrection is not based on good evidence, and therefore is not a factual conclusion, but rather represents a prejudice against the facts.
Testimony alone is not necessarily evidence. The person giving an account of an event may be mistaken, deluded, lying, etc, which is why verifiable evidence is necessary.
We don't have verifiable evidence in the bible. We have what anonymous authors, copying from older material and word of mouth transmission, tell us.
I post the following [i]without permission from either poster.
24hourcampfire.com
Originally Posted By antlers If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.
Answered by Doc Rocket
Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.
However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.
The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.
So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.
The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.
99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.
This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.
So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.
Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.
Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.
So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.
And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.
People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.
Where do you get the idea God has no jealousy? God tells us "My name is Jealous because I am a jealous God." (Exodus 34) You are anthropomorphizing God. You, and most including Christians, are missing the concept that God is Infinite. He fills the universe. Even the "space" between electrons and proton. That means when He loves He loves infinitely. Consider He set a rule that death is the punishment for sin and man's death cannot atone for his own sin. That's His rule and we can't do a thing to change it. So He sent His only Begotten Son to die for that punishment as a propitiation for all who will accept His Gift of His Son. When He hates He hates infinitely. Consider the Flood of Noah's time. Beautiful virgins, cute kittens, cuddly puppies, mean old men and caring mothers, lions, tigers, bears and yes even dinosaurs were all treated the same. We find their fossils in water born sediments all over the world.
No, this has nothing to do with me or 'my idea' - I am merely pointing out the contradictions between verses that clearly state that God is love, that Love is not jealous and verses that portray a vicious jealous God.
Once again....please take note of the attributes of a God of Love as described in the Bible as opposed to descriptions of a jealous vindictive God. The contradiction is undeniable. It is not something I am claiming, it is there in the bible;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8 "Love is not jealous." - 1 Corinthians 13:4 "God is jealous." - Exodus 20:5
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
As opposed to
Exodus 20:55 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
The Lord is a man of war, Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
So, on the contrary, it is the believer who dismisses these contradictions with no consideration, perhaps not understanding the argument, or even what a logical contradiction happens to look like.
I'm a little late with this, but here goes. Tell me what's wrong with contradictions.
Contradictions happen when two propositions (or more) are logically not compatible, therefore both cannot logically be true. In the simplest terms, if an object is described as being entirely white, it cannot be described as being entirely black....one description or the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
If God is described as a God of Love, who has no jealousy. who is good to all, love your enemy, etc, and God is described as being a jealous God, punishing generations for the sins of their fathers, ordering slaughter, killing guilty and innocent alike, etc.... both descriptions cannot be true, it can one or the other....or God is bipolar.
And these were already shown as complimentary and not contradictory when read in context.
No such thing was shown. Assertion is not the same thing as a valid argument.
If God is good to all and His tender mercy is all over Creation, God cannot be said to be vindictive or cruel.
The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. << Psalm 145:9 >>
As opposed to;
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
Bowsinger I think we have more than proven the alleged contradictions do not exist with every alleged contradiction that we have addressed with you. If you are not willing to see that, then more of the same will not profit you. I have not seen you post anything that cannot be reconciled. It comes down to what you are willing to believe and not what is honestly believable. One thing you are bringing to the forefront about the Bible is that it typically presents both sides of an issue so we can see it from all angles. A person gets very skewed in their perspectives when they always look at an issue from one vantage point. Are you willing to look at evidence from an honest perspective? Are you able to step outside your skepticism? Do you honestly seek truth? A child cannot learn from their teacher unless they first accept that their teacher has knowledge to impart. You will never find truth until you first accept that their is truth to be known...
I want to thank you for helping me prove the Bible is riddled with contradictions. I have a lot more of them.
Every one that I have posted and you have responded; you state that there is no contradiction. Then you explain and give reasons for the contradiction.
For example...“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Pet
You responded with a good explanation about the earth being destroyed and than renewed. So the “earth abideth forever” still remains a contradiction.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. Did the authors evolve from God killing children, raining burning sulfur, and genocide to the gentle teachings of Jesus?
You tell me to seek the truth. But I say onto you that the truth in not in you.
After 4 examples if you cannot see the contradictions are in your own mind and not the text, then responding to 6 more will only illustrate the same point. Not meaning to be disrespectful but the level you go to try to prove something that cannot be proven only weakens the position you hold. The contradictions that I addressed are not very difficult to resolve--it only takes some context, honest inquiry, and common sense.
After 4 examples of Bible contradictions that you cannot resolve...I am still waiting for your response to the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. To me, that is the biggest one of all. Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
Meanwhile here is another contradiction Incest “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12 “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16
Testimony alone is not necessarily evidence. The person giving an account of an event may be mistaken, deluded, lying, etc, which is why verifiable evidence is necessary.
We don't have verifiable evidence in the bible. We have what anonymous authors, copying from older material and word of mouth transmission, tell us.
\...--every court would examine eye-witness accounts and testimonies to establish evidence--.
the same video I posted earlier which has 50,000 + views or eye witnesses? to a bird being 'resurrected' would any jury or judge buy it? ...Do you consider it a hoax?.....How much evidence do you need to 'believe' what you see..?
nOw if you don't believe such video evidence is that of a resurrection , would you believe peoples written or verbal testimonies of same? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxQc3HbHJ88
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
testimonies to establish evidence--which is what the dictionary says.
Don't forget the range and quality of testimony that required to convince a court
a bunch of largely illiterate superstitious long dead no name peasants questionable reputation testimony without affidavit or deposition are not the same as A range of living persons and/or expert testimonies and forensic testimony present in court under oath and subject to cross examination.
So to answer your question as to whether I could establish the fact of the resurrection from the laws of evidence in a courtroom--absolutely yes if we can agree to the laws of evidence that are already established and we do not contrive new ones.
wishful hypothetical?...come and talk when you can cite real world nitty-gritty case law on the subject.
Originally Posted by Starman
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. Furthermore your approach would invalidate all history as fact because you cannot personally validate the events as an eye-witness. However on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history. They look at the evidence and try to make reasonable conclusions and then they teach history.
My approach requires proof to establish fact...and there's substantial physical evidence, proof and fact - that eg; WW1 and WW2 actually happened even though I did not eye-witness those wars taking place.
The Romans were in the UK, Africa, etc ,as a matter of fact. proven by the combination of Roman records, remaining Roman structures and vast number of recovered relics they left behind from 400 yrs of occupation.
...so how does my approach ' invalidate all history as fact'..??
do you stick by your sweeping statement?
Collins Dictionary; "If someone makes a sweeping statement or generalization, they make a statement which applies to all things of a particular kind, although they have not considered all the relevant facts carefully."
Bowsinger I think we have more than proven the alleged contradictions do not exist with every alleged contradiction that we have addressed with you. If you are not willing to see that, then more of the same will not profit you. I have not seen you post anything that cannot be reconciled. It comes down to what you are willing to believe and not what is honestly believable. One thing you are bringing to the forefront about the Bible is that it typically presents both sides of an issue so we can see it from all angles. A person gets very skewed in their perspectives when they always look at an issue from one vantage point. Are you willing to look at evidence from an honest perspective? Are you able to step outside your skepticism? Do you honestly seek truth? A child cannot learn from their teacher unless they first accept that their teacher has knowledge to impart. You will never find truth until you first accept that their is truth to be known...
I want to thank you for helping me prove the Bible is riddled with contradictions. I have a lot more of them.
Every one that I have posted and you have responded; you state that there is no contradiction. Then you explain and give reasons for the contradiction.
For example...“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Pet
You responded with a good explanation about the earth being destroyed and than renewed. So the “earth abideth forever” still remains a contradiction.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. Did the authors evolve from God killing children, raining burning sulfur, and genocide to the gentle teachings of Jesus?
You tell me to seek the truth. But I say onto you that the truth in not in you.
After 4 examples if you cannot see the contradictions are in your own mind and not the text, then responding to 6 more will only illustrate the same point. Not meaning to be disrespectful but the level you go to try to prove something that cannot be proven only weakens the position you hold. The contradictions that I addressed are not very difficult to resolve--it only takes some context, honest inquiry, and common sense.
After 4 examples of Bible contradictions that you cannot resolve...I am still waiting for your response to the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. To me, that is the biggest one of all. Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
Meanwhile here is another contradiction Incest “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12 “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16
Bowsinger,
Wish I had the time to delve more into some of your questions but I just don’t,
But, let me say a couple of things about supposed contradictions in the Bible. Many will see a “contradiction” and stumble or get stuck on it. This has happened to me where I read or see something that appears contradictory or something I simply don’t understand. Takes me time to resolve the issue or time and study to sometimes even understand the issue. The “law” had been an issue for me for years and it took me a long time to get what is now a better understanding of it. Anyway...
The example in your post Sarah and the sister thing is easy for me to understand. Sarah seems to be Abraham’s half sister or maybe at most a granddaughter of Abraham’s father. But, the law against such was not given till much later, well after his death. The same sort of thing if one thinks about who the children of Adam and Eve married. Had to be their siblings. This is another subject.
Anyway, the point is, that if one has only limited knowledge or experience in Biblical issues, one can find issues that they do not understand and then believe this “unresolved” question is a biblical error or contradiction.
When many of the supposed contradictions come up, the echo chamber effect can be there. If one only looks for answers to questions on atheistic internet sites they are simply hollering into that echo chamber and receive nothing back but their own bias.
You may consider reviewing sites devoted to Christian apologetics if you want to get out of the echo chamber.
And yes, Christians have echo chamber issues. All people do. Consider the political echo chamber sites that proliferate on the internet.
Bowsinger I think we have more than proven the alleged contradictions do not exist with every alleged contradiction that we have addressed with you. If you are not willing to see that, then more of the same will not profit you. I have not seen you post anything that cannot be reconciled. It comes down to what you are willing to believe and not what is honestly believable. One thing you are bringing to the forefront about the Bible is that it typically presents both sides of an issue so we can see it from all angles. A person gets very skewed in their perspectives when they always look at an issue from one vantage point. Are you willing to look at evidence from an honest perspective? Are you able to step outside your skepticism? Do you honestly seek truth? A child cannot learn from their teacher unless they first accept that their teacher has knowledge to impart. You will never find truth until you first accept that their is truth to be known...
I want to thank you for helping me prove the Bible is riddled with contradictions. I have a lot more of them.
Every one that I have posted and you have responded; you state that there is no contradiction. Then you explain and give reasons for the contradiction.
For example...“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Pet
You responded with a good explanation about the earth being destroyed and than renewed. So the “earth abideth forever” still remains a contradiction.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. Did the authors evolve from God killing children, raining burning sulfur, and genocide to the gentle teachings of Jesus?
You tell me to seek the truth. But I say onto you that the truth in not in you.
After 4 examples if you cannot see the contradictions are in your own mind and not the text, then responding to 6 more will only illustrate the same point. Not meaning to be disrespectful but the level you go to try to prove something that cannot be proven only weakens the position you hold. The contradictions that I addressed are not very difficult to resolve--it only takes some context, honest inquiry, and common sense.
After 4 examples of Bible contradictions that you cannot resolve...I am still waiting for your response to the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. To me, that is the biggest one of all. Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
Meanwhile here is another contradiction Incest “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12 “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16
Its really beyond the scope of an internet posting to get all this across but I'm only on my second cup of coffee and I'll try.
In Genesis 15, God made his covenant with Abraham. It says "Abraham believed God and it was "CREDITED" to him for righteousness". Did not say he was righteous but that he received it "on credit". You also have to consider that the Mosaic law against incest which you quote from Leviticus and Deuteronomy was not given until 400 plus years after Abraham. Paul teaches in Romans that "without law there is no knowledge of sin".....so the reality is that Abe did not know he was not supposed to marry his sister. The sin was there but until the law, God did not "impute" it except in cases where it threatened the existence of our species.......examples the flood and Sodom.
Back to the Covenant in Genesis 15. This would establish the nation of Israel from which the Messiah would eventually come. In ancient Bedouin culture the blood covenant was the most serious form of agreement there was. Breaking it meant the death of the offending party and perhaps his family as well. God used this practice to convince Abraham, on his level, that his word was good. They took some large animals, killed them, cut them in half and laid the halves opposite of each other making a "walkway" between them.....a bloody mess. They would stand in this walkway and swear oaths to one another with the implication being if they were broken, what happened to the animals would happen to them. In this way God essentially wedded himself to Abraham and subsequently the Jewish people. In making covenant with another family or party one of the aspects in those days was "your enemies are my enemies and everything I have is yours". In this way, the people who came against ancient Israel put themselves in the position of being the enemies of the almighty and were in a world of hurt as God had sworn in blood to protect and defend his people.
All of this of course was a huge process played out over centuries in which the ultimate goal was to get Jesus into the earth and accomplish the redemtion of man. Currently we are in the era of the Gospel. When that era ends at the second coming, Jesus ain't gonna be so "gentle" to the enemies of God.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
[quote=rimfire]24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts? [/quote
Hmm.... lot of evidence and testimony, but as usual, you are free to make your own choices and come to your own conclusions about God.
I will step in it one more time. What YOU think or believe about God does not change Him. How God views you is paramount. If you choose to stay in unbelief and do not place any regard on the evidence you see, then so be it.
TF49 Thanks for proving my point. I'm sure you don't even realize it.
Not a problem with me. I agree with you. There is evidence and there is testimony. You will not have proof until you seek it and the Holy Spirit provides it.
Don’t Seek is usually equal to Don’t Get.
I am afraid that if one persists in demanding that God “prove Himself to me” on that one’s own terms, that that one will never see any proof.
Same with this idea that folks on this forum “did not offer proof nor sufficient evidence.” This is not a good excuse for “not finding.”
Further to the proof point. There is proof of God. I explained this previously.
An honest seeker seeks and God responds to that individual with proof..... from God, directly to the honest seeker.
The one who says that Jesus followers just follow blindly without evidence of the reality of God simply have not experienced God. They are totally wrong about the “non-existence” of proof but..... they just can’t see it.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
If you don't mind would you tell us how information is generated and how it is contained in the DNA molecule?
Don't appeal to panspermia. That only generates the next question, "Where did that come from?"
I want to thank you for helping me prove the Bible is riddled with contradictions. I have a lot more of them.
Every one that I have posted and you have responded; you state that there is no contradiction. Then you explain and give reasons for the contradiction.
For example...“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Pet
If the Earth turned into a desolate wasteland like Mars, would it still exist?
No facts have been offered yet. I guess believers have no concept of facts vs. opinion. This post will be replied to with more opinions presented as fact. Also please understand I don't care if a person "believes" that is their right,its just not a fact. If you were debating a muzzy who was quoting the koran and saying mohommad was the one true profit you would be able to see the flaws in his argument. When you do the same thing using the bible and jesus you can't see it. That is where the brainwashing comes in.
No facts have been offered yet. I guess believers have no concept of facts vs. opinion. This post will be replied to with more opinions presented as fact. Also please understand I don't care if a person "believes" that is their right,its just not a fact. If you were debating a muzzy who was quoting the koran and saying mohommad was the one true profit you would be able to see the flaws in his argument. When you do the same thing using the bible and jesus you can't see it. That is where the brainwashing comes in.
Well, I’ll try one last time..... last, for which many of us will the thankful.....
You totally wrong when you allege that believers have no concept of facts vs opinion. You have either not understood my posts or you are simply rejecting them out of hand. IDK, it is up to you.
There is no brainwashing of Jesus’ followers into believing a lie. Just the reverse.
Anyway..... The big lie is that “God” does not exist and even if a God is there, He is not relevant and can safely be ignored.
The “brainwashing”is indeed out there I the world and you present as being a victim of that.
Your brain is washed out. If you are a hunter or get out in nature much, every bit of it is a testimony to God.You obviously don't see it as such, but it's not the only one. Such testimonies to a Creator are found everywhere, That you can't see them is only because you refuse to. I see them continually. I have no time for arguments with fools, which the Bible says are those who refuse to believe the obvious: God. Enjoy your life as much as you can. Death will be Hell.
God says this god says that are you kidding. CANT YOU COME UP WITH A FACT and not a belief? I believe there is other life in the Universe, but have no facts to back it up. Therefore I will not claim it to be a fact. god believers are incapable of logical thought in regards to religion. To much fear instilled in them that they will go to hell. Fear is one of the main tools of a good brainwashing. Did you get you brainwashing when you were young, or during a time in your life when you were down and out? While this may sound offensive I don't mean it to be. Don't worry about offending me I have a thick skin and enjoy the banter, hope you do to. If you are a liberal commie. demacrap then we would have problems. MAGA
Where do you get the idea God has no jealousy? God tells us "My name is Jealous because I am a jealous God." (Exodus 34) You are anthropomorphizing God. You, and most including Christians, are missing the concept that God is Infinite. He fills the universe. Even the "space" between electrons and proton. That means when He loves He loves infinitely. Consider He set a rule that death is the punishment for sin and man's death cannot atone for his own sin. That's His rule and we can't do a thing to change it. So He sent His only Begotten Son to die for that punishment as a propitiation for all who will accept His Gift of His Son. When He hates He hates infinitely. Consider the Flood of Noah's time. Beautiful virgins, cute kittens, cuddly puppies, mean old men and caring mothers, lions, tigers, bears and yes even dinosaurs were all treated the same. We find their fossils in water born sediments all over the world.
There were dinosaurs on the Earth 4000 years ago? Why did the aquatic dinosaurs not survive the flood as the fishes did?
Where do you get the idea God has no jealousy? God tells us "My name is Jealous because I am a jealous God." (Exodus 34) You are anthropomorphizing God. You, and most including Christians, are missing the concept that God is Infinite. He fills the universe. Even the "space" between electrons and proton. That means when He loves He loves infinitely. Consider He set a rule that death is the punishment for sin and man's death cannot atone for his own sin. That's His rule and we can't do a thing to change it. So He sent His only Begotten Son to die for that punishment as a propitiation for all who will accept His Gift of His Son. When He hates He hates infinitely. Consider the Flood of Noah's time. Beautiful virgins, cute kittens, cuddly puppies, mean old men and caring mothers, lions, tigers, bears and yes even dinosaurs were all treated the same. We find their fossils in water born sediments all over the world.
There were dinosaurs on the Earth 4000 years ago? Why did the aquatic dinosaurs not survive the flood as the fishes did?
They couldnt dive deep enough for sea weed and they floated over areas mesquite and pine and with no seaweed to eat. Duh.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
Heck,
I'm not even asking for proof, just some good evidence. They can't even produce that.
Believers have told you, including me, many times God said for us to believe in His word as a child and purposely gave us no real proof.
A little child has no scientific proof it can read to trust in its parent but it does.
He didnt want to force stiff necks to do His bidding, wanting you to submit to His will out of love.
A little child wont last long without depending on its provider and neither will you.
And yes, you ask for proof (scientific, specifically) over and like a broken record and then you lie.
We try to provide empirical proof by recalling prophecy fulfilled, yet you prefer to hold on to the one chance in a trillion trillion they were lucky coincidences.
People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.
The part I can't handle is being told that I am too dumb to understand what some self-proclaimed "Teacher" is proclaiming as the truth. Too dumb to understand there are NO contradictions in the Bible. None what so ever.
Total Bull... i know a contradiction when I see one.
The contradiction between the blood thirsty God of the old testament and the teachings of Jesus are what I find the most troubling.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
Heck,
I'm not even asking for proof, just some good evidence. They can't even produce that.
Nah, the evidence for a Creator is right in front of you but you choose not to acknowledge it.
Which is crazier..... “God created the world”. Or the “The world came into existence from ‘nothing’.....’nothing created everything we see”
And don’t start that Magic Larry business again. Even a comic like a Stephen Colbert showed ML started with something. Larry just gave his book a misleading title.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
Heck,
I'm not even asking for proof, just some good evidence. They can't even produce that.
Nah, the evidence for a Creator is right in front of you but you choose not to acknowledge it.
Which is crazier..... “God created the world”. Or the “The world came into existence from ‘nothing’.....’nothing created everything we see”
And don’t start that Magic Larry business again. Even a comic like a Stephen Colbert showed ML started with something. Larry just gave his book a misleading title.
With all due respect, the various forms of the Cosmological Arguments are nothing more than arguments from ignorance. Even if we accepted all the premises of the argument, which I don't, you are still left holding an empty sack, because there's no logical way to move from "there must be a creator", to "that creator is (your preferred version of your preferred god)".
Believers have told you, including me, many times God said for us to believe in His word as a child and purposely gave us no real proof.
A little child has no scientific proof it can read to trust in its parent but it does.
He didnt want to force stiff necks to do His bidding, wanting you to submit to His will out of love.
A little child wont last long without depending on its provider and neither will you.
And yes, you ask for proof (scientific, specifically) over and like a broken record and then you lie.
We try to provide empirical proof by recalling prophecy fulfilled, yet you prefer to hold on to the one chance in a trillion trillion they were lucky coincidences.
As He said, you fall in your own trap.
So believe the bible because the bible says you should believe it?
By that reasoning you should believe everything said by AOC, after all, she says you should believe her.
The circular reasoning for the bible works just as well for her socialist stick...
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
If you don't mind would you tell us how information is generated and how it is contained in the DNA molecule?
Don't appeal to panspermia. That only generates the next question, "Where did that come from?"
DNA is not "information". It's a self replicating molecule, that replicates via chemical reactions.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
If you don't mind would you tell us how information is generated and how it is contained in the DNA molecule?
Don't appeal to panspermia. That only generates the next question, "Where did that come from?"
DNA is not "information". It's a self replicating molecule, that replicates via chemical reactions.
not to quibble, but information is contained in the self replicating molecule, that replicates via chemical reactions.
chemical reactions have a kind of valence or electrical charge(s). that get's into electricity, and pretty quickly we're mired in quantum physics.
after that the metaphysicists swarm out of the woodwork.
then even at the 17 decimal point level of detail we can't quite figure out what's what, and what isn't.
and then the real and unreal magicians might have something to offer (The Order of the Golden Dawn, gurjeiff, and others).
TF49 The fact that there is a Universe, does more to discredit the god myth than support it. You won't understand it if you use emotion to figure it out. Sorry
I just heard trump say that we had God given rights. He also said God bless America and God bless the military. Must be an Imaginary being he was referring to. I just heard the name Christ in a song they were singing too.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
Heck,
I'm not even asking for proof, just some good evidence. They can't even produce that.
Nah, the evidence for a Creator is right in front of you but you choose not to acknowledge it.
Which is crazier..... “God created the world”. Or the “The world came into existence from ‘nothing’.....’nothing created everything we see”
And don’t start that Magic Larry business again. Even a comic like a Stephen Colbert showed ML started with something. Larry just gave his book a misleading title.
With all due respect, the various forms of the Cosmological Arguments are nothing more than arguments from ignorance. Even if we accepted all the premises of the argument, which I don't, you are still left holding an empty sack, because there's no logical way to move from "there must be a creator", to "that creator is (your preferred version of your preferred god)".
Didn’t say anything about moving from a “creator” to “that creator.” Nice switch there but the choice still stands.... “the Creator made everything” or “Nothing created everything.”
What say you?
You look into your sack and find a note...It says “nothing created everything.” Well, you can’t accept that so here comes your bafflegab.
I had a curious conversation a number of years ago with a young man about the origin of the universe. He was anxious to participate and suddenly interjected with an air of knowledge and authority that “aliens created everything.” Hmm.... he just didn’t have a grasp of the issue.
mUslim highjackers prayed to Allah to hit the Towers, but fact remains they needed to be trained and then fly the jets to achieve their aim.
United flight 93, while some passengers panicked and prayed, others took real world effective action and wrestled control of the aircraft away from highjackers before they could fly it into Washington DC.
do christians believe with enough 'prayer power' God will fly the B757 remotely like a drone?
God says this god says that are you kidding. CANT YOU COME UP WITH A FACT and not a belief? I believe there is other life in the Universe, but have no facts to back it up. Therefore I will not claim it to be a fact. god believers are incapable of logical thought in regards to religion. To much fear instilled in them that they will go to hell. Fear is one of the main tools of a good brainwashing. Did you get you brainwashing when you were young, or during a time in your life when you were down and out? While this may sound offensive I don't mean it to be. Don't worry about offending me I have a thick skin and enjoy the banter, hope you do to. If you are a liberal commie. demacrap then we would have problems. MAGA
You didn't tell us where DNA comes from. Do you have facts to lean on for this information?
TF49 The fact that there is a Universe, does more to discredit the god myth than support it. You won't understand it if you use emotion to figure it out. Sorry
Don’t think so....care to explain your statement?
Larry Krauss wrote book titled something like Universe from Nothing. It was widely heralded by atheists from all over as he purported to be able to show how the entire creation of the universe could be mathematically explained.... said he could show that everything really could come from nothing.” It was not true at all... he didn’t start with “nothing”.... but the title sold books and many who have not read the book didn’t see it for the baloney it was.
You may want to search for “Stephen Colbert Destroys Lawrence Krauss.” I think YouTube deleted it but it was still on Vimeo not too long ago.
Good news for you.... the only emotion involved is humor.... well a bit of laughter added in. You’ll understand it.
Where do you get the idea God has no jealousy? God tells us "My name is Jealous because I am a jealous God." (Exodus 34) You are anthropomorphizing God. You, and most including Christians, are missing the concept that God is Infinite. He fills the universe. Even the "space" between electrons and proton. That means when He loves He loves infinitely. Consider He set a rule that death is the punishment for sin and man's death cannot atone for his own sin. That's His rule and we can't do a thing to change it. So He sent His only Begotten Son to die for that punishment as a propitiation for all who will accept His Gift of His Son. When He hates He hates infinitely. Consider the Flood of Noah's time. Beautiful virgins, cute kittens, cuddly puppies, mean old men and caring mothers, lions, tigers, bears and yes even dinosaurs were all treated the same. We find their fossils in water born sediments all over the world.
There were dinosaurs on the Earth 4000 years ago? Why did the aquatic dinosaurs not survive the flood as the fishes did?
You would have to ask someone who can tell you why 90% of all creatures, both animal and plants are extinct. Extinction does not discriminate. What happen to megalodon? The same thing that happen to the dodo bird.
TF49 The fact that there is a Universe, does more to discredit the god myth than support it. You won't understand it if you use emotion to figure it out. Sorry
You believe something from nothing is more believable than accepting the idea of an Infinite Intelligent Energy we call God?
Your blind faith is very strong. Do you understand the basic premise of cause and effect?
Did you get you brainwashing when you were young, or during a time in your life when you were down and out?
Some folks didn't consider themselves down and out until a preacher threatened them with fire and brimstone and convinced them they were doomed.
its like walking into a doctors practice just fine , then they sell the person a set of crutches cause they managed to convince them they can no longer cope without them.
What does DNA have to do with wanting to know even one fact that god exists? (Nothing is the answer) The old avoid the question ploy. Whats next the old I know you are but what am I children use.
It seems the believers are incapable of providing proof of a god. They can't grasp the concept of proof, it would destroy all they believed in.
Heck,
Thunderstick won't even answer the simple question, is he a Young Earth Creationist or not?
Hmm, not answering a question is not unheard of around here. Let me see if I recall it correctly...You challenged me to answer what would happen if you were right about “nothing after death.” As I recall you were going to respond about what would be your fate if Christianity was right and you died without knowing the Lord.
As I recall, I responded quite clearly and you then went silent. You, antelope sniper, wouldn’t even answer the simple question.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
Heck,
I'm not even asking for proof, just some good evidence. They can't even produce that.
Nah, the evidence for a Creator is right in front of you but you choose not to acknowledge it.
Which is crazier..... “God created the world”. Or the “The world came into existence from ‘nothing’.....’nothing created everything we see”
And don’t start that Magic Larry business again. Even a comic like a Stephen Colbert showed ML started with something. Larry just gave his book a misleading title.
He never prayed for the scales to fall from his eyes.
17From the rest he makes a god, his graven image. He bows down to it and worships; he prays to it and says, “Save me, for you are my god.” 18They cannot comprehend or understand, for He has shut their eyes so they cannot see, and closed their minds so they cannot understand.
His god is, "There is no God" and that god he worships mightily.
"Which is crazier..... “God created the world”. Or the “The world came into existence from ‘nothing’.....’nothing created everything we see”
What is crazier is believing that a ghost created everything we see from nothing. Who or what created that ghost?
No one on this thread mentioned a "ghost". If you are using the term "ghost" to disparage God you are failing miserably. God is Infinite. Therefore He has no beginning or ending. Nothing can be greater than Infinite. Your question is akin to asking, "To whom is the bachelor married?" It conveys no information.
Where do you get the idea God has no jealousy? God tells us "My name is Jealous because I am a jealous God." (Exodus 34) You are anthropomorphizing God. You, and most including Christians, are missing the concept that God is Infinite. He fills the universe. Even the "space" between electrons and proton. That means when He loves He loves infinitely. Consider He set a rule that death is the punishment for sin and man's death cannot atone for his own sin. That's His rule and we can't do a thing to change it. So He sent His only Begotten Son to die for that punishment as a propitiation for all who will accept His Gift of His Son. When He hates He hates infinitely. Consider the Flood of Noah's time. Beautiful virgins, cute kittens, cuddly puppies, mean old men and caring mothers, lions, tigers, bears and yes even dinosaurs were all treated the same. We find their fossils in water born sediments all over the world.
There were dinosaurs on the Earth 4000 years ago? Why did the aquatic dinosaurs not survive the flood as the fishes did?
They couldnt dive deep enough for sea weed and they floated over areas mesquite and pine and with no seaweed to eat. Duh.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
Heck,
I'm not even asking for proof, just some good evidence. They can't even produce that.
Nah, the evidence for a Creator is right in front of you but you choose not to acknowledge it.
Which is crazier..... “God created the world”. Or the “The world came into existence from ‘nothing’.....’nothing created everything we see”
And don’t start that Magic Larry business again. Even a comic like a Stephen Colbert showed ML started with something. Larry just gave his book a misleading title.
With all due respect, the various forms of the Cosmological Arguments are nothing more than arguments from ignorance. Even if we accepted all the premises of the argument, which I don't, you are still left holding an empty sack, because there's no logical way to move from "there must be a creator", to "that creator is (your preferred version of your preferred god)".
Didn’t say anything about moving from a “creator” to “that creator.” Nice switch there but the choice still stands.... “the Creator made everything” or “Nothing created everything.”
What say you?
You look into your sack and find a note...It says “nothing created everything.” Well, you can’t accept that so here comes your bafflegab.
I had a curious conversation a number of years ago with a young man about the origin of the universe. He was anxious to participate and suddenly interjected with an air of knowledge and authority that “aliens created everything.” Hmm.... he just didn’t have a grasp of the issue.
So you believe in a non-specific creator god, not the God of Christianity?
It seems the believers are incapable of providing proof of a god. They can't grasp the concept of proof, it would destroy all they believed in.
Heck,
Thunderstick won't even answer the simple question, is he a Young Earth Creationist or not?
Hmm, not answering a question is not unheard of around here. Let me see if I recall it correctly...You challenged me to answer what would happen if you were right about “nothing after death.” As I recall you were going to respond about what would be your fate if Christianity was right and you died without knowing the Lord.
As I recall, I responded quite clearly and you then went silent. You, antelope sniper, wouldn’t even answer the simple question.
You would have to ask someone who can tell you why 90% of all creatures, both animal and plants are extinct. Extinction does not discriminate. What happen to megalodon? The same thing that happen to the dodo bird.
if Noah loaded unicorns onto the Ark, what happened to them after release?..
was it loss of habitat or were they hunted to extinction like the Dodo and Tas Tiger..?
Where do you get the idea God has no jealousy? God tells us "My name is Jealous because I am a jealous God." (Exodus 34) You are anthropomorphizing God. You, and most including Christians, are missing the concept that God is Infinite. He fills the universe. Even the "space" between electrons and proton. That means when He loves He loves infinitely. Consider He set a rule that death is the punishment for sin and man's death cannot atone for his own sin. That's His rule and we can't do a thing to change it. So He sent His only Begotten Son to die for that punishment as a propitiation for all who will accept His Gift of His Son. When He hates He hates infinitely. Consider the Flood of Noah's time. Beautiful virgins, cute kittens, cuddly puppies, mean old men and caring mothers, lions, tigers, bears and yes even dinosaurs were all treated the same. We find their fossils in water born sediments all over the world.
There were dinosaurs on the Earth 4000 years ago? Why did the aquatic dinosaurs not survive the flood as the fishes did?
You would have to ask someone who can tell you why 90% of all creatures, both animal and plants are extinct. Extinction does not discriminate. What happen to megalodon? The same thing that happen to the dodo bird.
For those not on the short list to get into heaven, take heart that God is still with you in hell.
Psa 139:7-12 KJV -
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
It seems the believers are incapable of providing proof of a god. They can't grasp the concept of proof, it would destroy all they believed in.
Heck,
Thunderstick won't even answer the simple question, is he a Young Earth Creationist or not?
Hmm, not answering a question is not unheard of around here. Let me see if I recall it correctly...You challenged me to answer what would happen if you were right about “nothing after death.” As I recall you were going to respond about what would be your fate if Christianity was right and you died without knowing the Lord.
As I recall, I responded quite clearly and you then went silent. You, antelope sniper, wouldn’t even answer the simple question.
Remember ...”C’mon Man?”
I've answered that more than once.
Odd, I don’t recall that you did. You went uncharacteristicly silent and as I recall, never returned to that thread.
So, if you right about no god and I do not have an eternal soul, when I die, all consciousness and whatever makes up Tf49, simply ceases to exist and that is the end of it....no ongoing consciousness.... nothing.... end of it. Same for my children and everybody else.
The question to you is the reverse. What if it is correct and true that God exists, His son is Jesus and you die without knowing him or him knowing you? What happens to your eternal soul?
TF49 You got it right when you die that's it. If you want to believe in an afterlife that is fine, I have no problem with you believing . That is all it is, a belief not a fact. I have no desire to take away your right to believe in a god I don't even support those who want to tear down religions symbols. My main beef with believers is they keep saying "your going to hell" if you don't conform to my belief system. (not all do this by any means)
My main beef with believers is they keep saying "your going to hell" if you don't conform to my belief system. (not all do this by any means)
I used to work with a sweet old Catholic lady who thought I was going to hell because I was a protestant.....ie not a member of the "one true church". I was touched by her compassion for me but not in the least worried about going to hell because I am strong in what I believe which is the Gospel as Christ and the apostles preached.
Seems to me a bonafide atheist should be the same way......so strong in his belief that hell does not exist that it would merely amuse him that someone would say he was going there. Otherwise some doubts perhaps need to be dealt with, which is something both sides of the fence have to do.
Although some sects of Christianity have managed to slice and dice the Bible to the point that they believe in such things as "soul destruction" ie the souls of unbelievers merely cease to exists or are destroyed rather than suffer eternally, or "universal salvation", most believe in the concept that hell is forever. So, when Christians, especially immature ones get bashed by atheists, the fall back position when they lose their temper is to remind them that they are going to hell.
Personally I don't like to do that. I figure they already know, and the gospel is not "you're going to hell", the Gospel is you don't have to.
RJY66 It does amuse me when I am told I'm going to hell. There is one instance I still laugh about, and it has been close to 50 years since it happened.
TF49 You got it right when you die that's it. If you want to believe in an afterlife that is fine, I have no problem with you believing . That is all it is, a belief not a fact. I have no desire to take away your right to believe in a god I don't even support those who want to tear down religions symbols. My main beef with believers is they keep saying "your going to hell" if you don't conform to my belief system. (not all do this by any means)
Please don’t think about this in the negative. We as Christians want to tell others about the good news, forgiveness, justification, eternal life etc with God rather than you suffering in torment forever. If we don’t tell you then how will you know? There is actually a pressing within us that Gods spirit urges us to witness to others. If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge? We know what’s coming because the Bible proclaims it and we believe it. We don’t do this to be a PITA but because of Gods love for us and for you.
For those not on the short list to get into heaven, take heart that God is still with you in hell.
Psa 139:7-12 KJV -
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
David had a very strong assurance of the presence God.
If a believer tries to "save" me, and I tell them I'm not interested in what they have to say, and they stop that's fine. It's the ones that won't stop that tick me off.Would you appreciate if a atheist hounded you to stop believing after you told them to stop?
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament.
Below quoted from evidence demands a reason by Josh McDowell
Isn’t the Old Testament God a God of Hate and the New Testament God a God of Love?
Another of the frequent accusations against the Bible is that it contains two different conceptions of God.
The Old Testament allegedly presents only a God of wrath, while the New Testament allegedly depicts only a God of love.
The Old Testament contains stories of God’s commanding the destruction ofSodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, and many other stories of God’s judgment and wrath. The accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike deity in contradistinction to the advanced teachings of Jesus to love one another and to turn the other cheek, as contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
These ideas about God seem to be in direct conflict, but a moment’s reflection will show otherwise.
Jesus Himself declared that the Old Testament may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37). He also observed that God in the Old Testament had continually desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).
This attitude can be seen with statements such as, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked… and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).
God would not have destroyed certain nations except that He is a God of justice and their evil could not go unchecked and condoned.
He did intend and desire to punish them as a part of His plan, in consistency with His holy nature and jealousy for His wayfaring people. What He desires in consistency with His pure character, He does in justice, in their case, providing they have not repented and come into harmony with His nature (Jeremiah 18).
In the case of the Amorites, God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they did not (Genesis 15:16). Noah preached 120 years to his generation before the great flood (Genesis 6:3). The proper Old Testament picture is one of a very patient God who gives these people untold opportunities to repent and come into harmony with Him, and only when they continually refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds. Contrary to some popular belief, the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the Bible were made by the Lord Jesus Himself.
In Matthew 23, for example, He lashed out at the religious leaders of His day, calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them that their destiny was eternal banishment from God’s presence.
In Matthew 10:34 (KJV), Jesus says that the purpose of His mission is not to unite but to divide. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He goes on to say that His word will cause a father to be against his son, a mother against her daughter, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:35).
We find judgment as well as love scattered very pervasively throughout the New Testament, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the Old Testament.
God is consistent and unchanging, but different situations call for different emphases. Therefore, when the two testaments are read the way they were intended, they reveal the same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished.
If a believer tries to "save" me, and I tell them I'm not interested in what they have to say, and they stop that's fine. It's the ones that won't stop that tick me off.Would you appreciate if a atheist hounded you to stop believing after you told them to stop?
Your point is well taken.
You sure you are not referring to JW’s or Mormons?
JW's and mormons are a large % but have had fanatics of all christian denominations pester me. "born agains" are the absolute worst. Jew's never seem to pester me yet they are the most persecuted I find that odd. Maybe I'll put my JW encounter from last week up later if anyone wants to hear it.
I’ll bet the ones who pester you the worst are the ones who have to work for their salvation. Others work because of their salvation. Different mindset and motives.
If a believer tries to "save" me, and I tell them I'm not interested in what they have to say, and they stop that's fine. It's the ones that won't stop that tick me off.Would you appreciate if a atheist hounded you to stop believing after you told them to stop?
Your point is well taken.
You sure you are not referring to JW’s or Mormons?
A polite "thanks but no thanks" has always worked for me. That includes members of my own family.
TF49 You got it right when you die that's it. If you want to believe in an afterlife that is fine, I have no problem with you believing . That is all it is, a belief not a fact. I have no desire to take away your right to believe in a god I don't even support those who want to tear down religions symbols. My main beef with believers is they keep saying "your going to hell" if you don't conform to my belief system. (not all do this by any means)
Please don’t think about this in the negative. We as Christians want to tell others about the good news, forgiveness, justification, eternal life etc with God rather than you suffering in torment forever. If we don’t tell you then how will you know? There is actually a pressing within us that Gods spirit urges us to witness to others. If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge? We know what’s coming because the Bible proclaims it and we believe it. We don’t do this to be a PITA but because of Gods love for us and for you.
Love, good news, forgiveness...news for you sport, God is an arsehole...but he is my type of arsehole so we get along just fine.
I will leave the touchy-feelie version to those who require soft and cuddly with their news, mine is good with me carrying a sword.
"If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?"
Any adult or parent who tells a child that they are going to Hell and will burn for eternity if they don't believe in their God is guilty of child abuse including your pompous self righteous self. I was never told I was going to Hell if I didn't believe in some God by any of my family but I heard it plenty in church and from nutters like you. I figured out at about age 6 that every person that was promising something they couldn't deliver (everlasting life in a Heaven) was a false prophet. Why would anyone want to go to a Heaven full of people like you anyway?
"If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?"
Any adult or parent who tells a child that they are going to Hell and will burn for eternity if they don't believe in their God is guilty of child abuse including your pompous self righteous self. I was never told I was going to Hell if I didn't believe in some God by any of my family but I heard it plenty in church and from nutters like you. I figured out at about age 6 that every person that was promising something they couldn't deliver (everlasting life in a Heaven) was a false prophet. Why would anyone want to go to a Heaven full of people like you anyway?
So your parents didn’t teach you anything and shipped you off to church by yourself and you had it all figured out by 6 years old. Are you mad at your parents?
"If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?"
Any adult or parent who tells a child that they are going to Hell and will burn for eternity if they don't believe in their God is guilty of child abuse including your pompous self righteous self. I was never told I was going to Hell if I didn't believe in some God by any of my family but I heard it plenty in church and from nutters like you. I figured out at about age 6 that every person that was promising something they couldn't deliver (everlasting life in a Heaven) was a false prophet. Why would anyone want to go to a Heaven full of people like you anyway?
So your parents didn’t teach you anything and shipped you off to church by yourself and you had it all figured out by 6 years old. Are you mad at your parents?
My parents taught me how to be a good moral person with logic, not threats of burning in a Hell, promises of everlasting life or brainwashing. They exposed me to religion but let me make my own decisions about religion. I'd heard enough in Bible school and sermons age 6 to figure out if I wanted nothing to do with any religion but it was forced on me by many adults (not my family). I remember being forced to lead a morning prayer in my 6th grade class and this same teacher asked each of her students what church their parents attended. She was probably one of your "enlightened" ancestors.
"If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?"
Any adult or parent who tells a child that they are going to Hell and will burn for eternity if they don't believe in their God is guilty of child abuse including your pompous self righteous self. I was never told I was going to Hell if I didn't believe in some God by any of my family but I heard it plenty in church and from nutters like you. I figured out at about age 6 that every person that was promising something they couldn't deliver (everlasting life in a Heaven) was a false prophet. Why would anyone want to go to a Heaven full of people like you anyway?
So your parents didn’t teach you anything and shipped you off to church by yourself and you had it all figured out by 6 years old. Are you mad at your parents?
Are you mad at your parents for lying to you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? Maybe you're still a believer, you are pretty gullible. I also figured out by age 6 that there was no Santa Claus because we didn't have a chimney and I knew that deer couldn't fly. My parents made me promise not to tell my younger sister and I didn't. It me longer to not believe in the tooth fairy because the tooth under my pillow disappeared and there was money under my pillow the next morning.
"If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?"
Any adult or parent who tells a child that they are going to Hell and will burn for eternity if they don't believe in their God is guilty of child abuse including your pompous self righteous self. I was never told I was going to Hell if I didn't believe in some God by any of my family but I heard it plenty in church and from nutters like you. I figured out at about age 6 that every person that was promising something they couldn't deliver (everlasting life in a Heaven) was a false prophet. Why would anyone want to go to a Heaven full of people like you anyway?
So your parents didn’t teach you anything and shipped you off to church by yourself and you had it all figured out by 6 years old. Are you mad at your parents?
My parents taught me how to be a good moral person with logic, not threats of burning in a Hell, promises of everlasting life or brainwashing. They exposed me to religion but let me make my own decisions about religion. I'd heard enough in Bible school and sermons age 6 to figure out if I wanted nothing to do with any religion but it was forced on me by many adults (not my family). I remember being forced to lead a morning prayer in my 6th grade class and this same teacher asked each of her students what church their parents attended. She was probably one of your "enlightened" ancestors.
Oh the horror. Under that kind of pressure did you go with a standard boilerplate prayer or did you make up a humdinger? In the 6th grade you probably could have got away with "God bless mama and daddy, teacher, and the starving pygmies in Africa.....amen".
I remember one time in church circa 1980 something a guest preacher said that the opening prayer was gonna be delivered by one of the members of the high school sunday school class I was in at the time and he would wait all afternoon for one of us to do it if he had to. As was our custom we were all sitting together. I looked around at the others and saw nothing but deer in the headlight looks. There was awkward silence in the whole place but the worst part was the Redskins game kicked off at 1 and I was hoping to only miss the first quarter......we may have even been playing the Cowboys that week. I knew I was gonna have to be the man. I stood up and issued forth a lengthy prayer full of soaring rhetoric, completely contrived and devoid of any Spirit whatsoever because it was coerced. The grownups said AMEN as did the guest pastor! I looked at my companions and in their eyes saw the gratitude of those saved from damnation itself! I was king of Sunday School for a day and got home in time to see the Skins. Can't remember if they won or not.
I believe in Jesus and I'll tell you about.. it once because the good book commands that, when the right situation dictates, of course. But if you don't respond in kind, I'll not do it again, because I figure if I planted the seed and the soil was fertile it will grow without me cultivating further.
There's been too many things happen where it could have gone either way but went my way when I prayed unselfishly and faithfully. You may think me a fool for believing it. But when it comes down to it, I don't really give a hoot what you think. If that were true and I'm a fool then so was Washington, Jefferson, Davy Crockett, Sam Houston and a whole unending list of great men and women who would have to be fools too and I don't think that's the case. I've known a few Episcopal Priests and they all had a minimum of a Master's Degree in something. One was a Phantom Pilot in Vietnam, another was a retired Airforce lifer officer who had a second career as a chemical engineer for a prominent company so I figure if people of that caliber can believe in the Holy Spirit I'm not too good for it. Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
Oh yeah and I need to add this, if you don't believe and I do, if I'm wrong it's really no big deal, but if you're wrong, Hmmm...well I'll leave that with you.
I believe in Jesus and I'll tell you about.. it once because the good book commands that, when the right situation dictates, of course. But if you don't respond in kind, I'll not do it again, because I figure if I planted the seed and the soil was fertile it will grow without me cultivating further.
There's been too many things happen where it could have gone either way but went my way when I prayed unselfishly and faithfully. You may think me a fool for believing it. But when it comes down to it, I don't really give a hoot what you think. If that were true and I'm a fool then so was Washington, Jefferson, Davy Crockett, Sam Houston and a whole unending list of great men and women who would have to be fools too and I don't think that's the case. I've known a few Episcopal Priests and they all had a minimum of a Master's Degree in something. One was a Phantom Pilot in Vietnam, another was a retired Airforce lifer officer who had a second career as a chemical engineer for a prominent company so I figure if people of that caliber can believe in the Holy Spirit I'm not too good for it. Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
Oh yeah and I need to add this, if you don't believe and I do, if I'm wrong it's really no big deal, but if you're wrong, Hmmm...well I'll leave that with you.
Over 40 years ago I prayed as hard as I knew how for the life of a small child who was my grandson. That didn't work out and I have learned to accept that. What was worse was the feeling I came away with that there was Nobody on the other end of the line.
Tried it again about 20 years later for a parent who was suffering and was ready to go. That same feeling came back; loud and clear.
I never understood how anyone could falsely PROFESS a belief they did not sincerely hold. My parents raised me to be more honest than that.
Though I understand that such was a matter of survival during the dark ages and inquisition. Heck I guess it is still a matter of survival in many parts of the world.
The Priesthood does not take lightly the threatening of their livelihood.
That's very true, God didn't destroy anything that showed they were repentive. Only the unrepentive and after many chances to repent were destroyed.
And when Jesus came to earth as man, he lived as us and died for us. He was the great repentance. He was love. He was forgiveness personified. That right there is why people perceive this difference in the Old and New Testaments. But the story of the New Testament was the prophecy if the Old Testament coming to pass.
The stories of the Old and New Testament are all tied together. I used to watch a TV Evangelist named Zola Levit. Zola was a Jew that accepted Christ as his savior. But he taught like a Rabbi. He was very knowledgeable in both books of the bible and could even with great knowledge converse on the books of the Catholic Bible that most other Christians don't recognize. He could explain everything in the New Testament and legitimize it with the writings of the Old Testament. I was really saddened when he died. Jews were God's chosen people and still are. And if the prophecies of the Bible are correct, those Jews that don't accept Christ now will in end times have another opportunity.
I've known a few Episcopal Priests and they all had a minimum of a Master's Degree in something. One was a Phantom Pilot in Vietnam, another was a retired Airforce lifer officer who had a second career as a chemical engineer for a prominent company so I figure if people of that caliber can believe in the Holy Spirit I'm not too good for it.
I have a late Uncle who was a gifted man intellectually. Had a mind like a roach motel.......facts got in but they never got out! He held a PHD in Chemistry and went on to a significant career in the petroleum industry. Although raised in the Baptist Church, when young and fresh out of grad school he set out to disprove Christianity in the hope of saving his family and friends from a lifetime of intellectual slavery to antiquated superstition. According to him, he really got after it, delving into the Greek and Hebrew, the whole 9 yards.....looking for something to support his ideas. Keep in mind this would have been the late 1940's or early 50's.....no internet or anything. Had to go to the library or buy reference books, whatever. That is the way this man was....when he got onto something he was like a bulldog.
Guess what? He messed around and got saved, and went on to be one of the strongest believers I have ever known....purely from his own research despite having started out with his mind all but made up in the other direction. He went on to start Bible study groups, churches, and helped lead hundreds of people to Christ......in his spare time. He was one of my many great mentors and role models.
I have to say that having experienced Salvation and having spent a lifetime as a believer, seeing saved people that had everything against them that should have been lost if circumstances counted, as well as people raised by godly parents who went to church as I did and blew it all off........ I've all but come to the conclusion that it ain't us that does the choosing......we just think we are doing it.
Over 40 years ago I prayed as hard as I knew how for the life of a small child who was my grandson. That didn't work out and I have learned to accept that. What was worse was the feeling I came away with that there was Nobody on the other end of the line.
Tried it again about 20 years later for a parent who was suffering and was ready to go. That same feeling came back; loud and clear.
.... We as Christians want to tell others about the good news...
...If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?
Any reasonable parent [with all their transgressor faults] would not just warn their child, but would step-in and pull a child back or rescue them from imminent danger and even do the same for a strangers child....now human parents are not always right there on spot to prevent a child from all threats and imminent danger, ..but Christians say GOD is....yet how many kids get killed running onto the road and other fatal incidences and mishaps when that 'all loving' God is watching.?
Why does that God not step in when even good human parents with their fallibilities inevitably fall short?
God doesn't interfere cause he is testing the free will of those naive little kids?...or maybe he is punishing the transgressor parents by allowing the tragic but totally preventable death of their child?
Of course christians will 'send prayers' when they hear of such events, ..but why would anyone need to send prayers when it was Gods will that such children should lose their life.?...what are those prayers supposed to do that God hasn't already pre-determined and taken care of?
folks pray that the tsunami don't wash their house and family and only milking cow and plough bullock away, but when it does they pray for what they lost, then they start praying for God to make life better..?...yet 'evidently' He thought the survivors life is just how it is supposed to be [without all those things.]
Originally Posted by Jahrs
David had a very strong assurance of the presence God.
Well it seems if you love God you can (among other transgressions) conduct premeditated murder just to steal anothers wife, and still be considered a man after Gods own heart.
BTW: I saw a young Asian woman in a busy food court briefly clasp her hands and close her eyes in silent grace before enjoying her coffee and donut,
I thought it was sincere and cute, and she didn't ask for miracles, seems like she was just humble and appreciative of the small everyday things many take for granted.
I've known a few Episcopal Priests and they all had a minimum of a Master's Degree in something. One was a Phantom Pilot in Vietnam, another was a retired Airforce lifer officer who had a second career as a chemical engineer for a prominent company so I figure if people of that caliber can believe in the Holy Spirit I'm not too good for it.
I have a late Uncle who was a gifted man intellectually. Had a mind like a roach motel.......facts got in but they never got out! He held a PHD in Chemistry and went on to a significant career in the petroleum industry. Although raised in the Baptist Church, when young and fresh out of grad school he set out to disprove Christianity in the hope of saving his family and friends from a lifetime of intellectual slavery to antiquated superstition. According to him, he really got after it, delving into the Greek and Hebrew, the whole 9 yards.....looking for something to support his ideas. Keep in mind this would have been the late 1940's or early 50's.....no internet or anything. Had to go to the library or buy reference books, whatever. That is the way this man was....when he got onto something he was like a bulldog.
Guess what? He messed around and got saved, and went on to be one of the strongest believers I have ever known....purely from his own research despite having started out with his mind all but made up in the other direction. He went on to start Bible study groups, churches, and helped lead hundreds of people to Christ......in his spare time. He was one of my many great mentors and role models.
I have to say that having experienceHfetime as a believer, seeing saved people that had everything against them that should have been lost if circumstances counted, as well as people raised by godly parents who went to church as I did and blew it all off........ I've all but come to the conclusion that it ain't us that does the choosing......we just think we are doing it.
Fantastic testimony Brother! I would have loved to have met your uncle.
Having said all that, I'm not the pillar of the church. I'm a sinner from way back, but I know and believe that Jesus Christ is real and he is our redeeming force. No man cometh to the father except by me. He's as real as my Volkswagen Jetta, my .270 Winchester or my house. He's there, I can't touch him, feel him, or see him, but he's there. I do feel him in my heart.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament.
Below quoted from evidence demands a reason by Josh McDowell
Isn’t the Old Testament God a God of Hate and the New Testament God a God of Love?
Another of the frequent accusations against the Bible is that it contains two different conceptions of God.
The Old Testament allegedly presents only a God of wrath, while the New Testament allegedly depicts only a God of love.
The Old Testament contains stories of God’s commanding the destruction ofSodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, and many other stories of God’s judgment and wrath. The accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike deity in contradistinction to the advanced teachings of Jesus to love one another and to turn the other cheek, as contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
These ideas about God seem to be in direct conflict, but a moment’s reflection will show otherwise.
Jesus Himself declared that the Old Testament may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37). He also observed that God in the Old Testament had continually desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).
This attitude can be seen with statements such as, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked… and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).
God would not have destroyed certain nations except that He is a God of justice and their evil could not go unchecked and condoned.
He did intend and desire to punish them as a part of His plan, in consistency with His holy nature and jealousy for His wayfaring people. What He desires in consistency with His pure character, He does in justice, in their case, providing they have not repented and come into harmony with His nature (Jeremiah 18).
In the case of the Amorites, God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they did not (Genesis 15:16). Noah preached 120 years to his generation before the great flood (Genesis 6:3). The proper Old Testament picture is one of a very patient God who gives these people untold opportunities to repent and come into harmony with Him, and only when they continually refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds. Contrary to some popular belief, the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the Bible were made by the Lord Jesus Himself.
In Matthew 23, for example, He lashed out at the religious leaders of His day, calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them that their destiny was eternal banishment from God’s presence.
In Matthew 10:34 (KJV), Jesus says that the purpose of His mission is not to unite but to divide. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He goes on to say that His word will cause a father to be against his son, a mother against her daughter, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:35).
We find judgment as well as love scattered very pervasively throughout the New Testament, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the Old Testament.
God is consistent and unchanging, but different situations call for different emphases. Therefore, when the two testaments are read the way they were intended, they reveal the same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished.
Thank you for responding and bringing your thoughts to the conversation. I still can not agree. A God of justice would not have killed innocent people including kids. Jesus never condoned anything that evil.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
Oh yeah and I need to add this, if you don't believe and I do, if I'm wrong it's really no big deal, but if you're wrong, Hmmm...well I'll leave that with you.
That is known as Pascal's wager. If Christianity isn't true, you are supposedly out nothing but some time. But where it fails is if Islam or something is really the true religion.
Besides, you can't make yourself believe. You either believe or you don't.
JW's and mormons are a large % but have had fanatics of all christian denominations pester me. "born agains" are the absolute worst. Jew's never seem to pester me yet they are the most persecuted I find that odd. Maybe I'll put my JW encounter from last week up later if anyone wants to hear it.
Born Agains make mockery of Christianity in my opinion. They wear their status as "saved" on their sleeve and are pretty condescending to anyone who dares to believe differently than them.
TF49 Thanks for proving my point. I'm sure you don't even realize it.
To me, the strongest argument for the existence of God is the extremely improbability that functional proteins were produced by random, material processes. One thing is for sure: religious believers can be very annoying. Humble and sincere ones who live their beliefs and are not ostentatious about it are admirable, but most (like jaguarTx---yes, I said it) are complete hypocrites and give Christianity a bad name.
JW's and mormons are a large % but have had fanatics of all christian denominations pester me. "born agains" are the absolute worst. Jew's never seem to pester me yet they are the most persecuted I find that odd. Maybe I'll put my JW encounter from last week up later if anyone wants to hear it.
It's really not odd. Jews do not have a tradition of converting others to their religion. If you want to join, that's fine. If not, that's fine. I believe that JWs are required to convert so many people per each in order to go to heaven. Or maybe only the most 144,000 deserving get to go to heaven. I forget. As for Mormons, I don't know anything about them. The few Mormons i have known have been decent people and didn't try to convert me.
If the complexity of Biology seems unlikely to have evolved, how much more complex is the existence of a Creator? If one requires a Creator, so does the other, ad infinitum.
TF49 Thanks for proving my point. I'm sure you don't even realize it.
To me, the strongest argument for the existence of God is the extremely improbability that functional proteins were produced by random, material processes. One thing is for sure: religious believers can be very annoying. Humble and sincere ones who live their beliefs and are not ostentatious about it are admirable, but most (like jaguarTx---yes, I said it) are complete hypocrites and give Christianity a bad name.
Odd thought here.... I’m starting to like the “discussion” that we see here on these threads. Sure there is sharp disagreement but those that would consider themselves skeptics do indeed show up and participate. On some level and for some reason, they are here.
At a minimum, they are stirred up in their soul .........for some reason.
.... We as Christians want to tell others about the good news...
...If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?
Just like the poofters that insist that everyone support their rainbow flag.
Guess what sport...people don't want your ideals, nor their's pushed in their face.
How about you keep your proselytising to yourself and worship quietly
Muslims, peta, anti firearms nuts, socialists, greenies, vegans, christians...the list of arseholes determined to "convince" you is endless.
Remember those questions on the IQ tests they gave you when you were a little kid that asked "which of these don't belong". Christians are sorta like that in your list of "arseholes". The Christian belief system tends to make us vote against the advancement of everything else on your list.
Using an American football analogy which you probably won't understand, Conservative non-believers hatred of Christians makes about as much sense as everyone on a football team hating the pro bowl left tackle for protecting the quarterback's blind side to well.
.... We as Christians want to tell others about the good news...
...If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?
Just like the poofters that insist that everyone support their rainbow flag.
Guess what sport...people don't want your ideals, nor their's pushed in their face.
How about you keep your proselytising to yourself and worship quietly
Muslims, peta, anti firearms nuts, socialists, greenies, vegans, christians...the list of arseholes determined to "convince" you is endless.
Remember those questions on the IQ tests they gave you when you were a little kid that asked "which of these don't belong". Christians are sorta like that in your list of "arseholes". The Christian belief system tends to make us vote against the advancement of everything else on your list.
Using an American football analogy which you probably won't understand, Conservative non-believers hatred of Christians makes about as much sense as everyone on a football team hating the pro bowl left tackle for protecting the quarterback's blind side to well.
They most definitely do belong, because each and every one thinks it is his/her duty to make the rest of the world think and do as they do.
Lots of Asians know Jesus. My wife is asian and she never questions the existence of Jesus. She was raised Catholic and joined the Episcopal church with me. She's the second best thing in my world, Jesus is number one. I'm a sinner from hell unless I have Jesus. And this belief costs me nothing. It's there for the picking or the taking. But believe me, I'm no preacher. I'm just an everyday guy that has to have Christ to make it. I'm not holier than thou and I am Fluent in Sailor. I've been known to tip a few cans or jugs. I have to ask for forgiveness on a regular basis because I'm so weak. Don't look at me as an example but only as what God can do with a very weak sinner.
.... We as Christians want to tell others about the good news...
...If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?
Just like the poofters that insist that everyone support their rainbow flag.
Guess what sport...people don't want your ideals, nor their's pushed in their face.
How about you keep your proselytising to yourself and worship quietly
Muslims, peta, anti firearms nuts, socialists, greenies, vegans, christians...the list of arseholes determined to "convince" you is endless.
Remember those questions on the IQ tests they gave you when you were a little kid that asked "which of these don't belong". Christians are sorta like that in your list of "arseholes". The Christian belief system tends to make us vote against the advancement of everything else on your list.
Using an American football analogy which you probably won't understand, Conservative non-believers hatred of Christians makes about as much sense as everyone on a football team hating the pro bowl left tackle for protecting the quarterback's blind side to well.
They most definitely do belong, because each and every one thinks it is his/her duty to make the rest of the world think and do as they do.
.... We as Christians want to tell others about the good news...
...If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?
Just like the poofters that insist that everyone support their rainbow flag.
Guess what sport...people don't want your ideals, nor their's pushed in their face.
How about you keep your proselytising to yourself and worship quietly
Muslims, peta, anti firearms nuts, socialists, greenies, vegans, christians...the list of arseholes determined to "convince" you is endless.
Remember those questions on the IQ tests they gave you when you were a little kid that asked "which of these don't belong". Christians are sorta like that in your list of "arseholes". The Christian belief system tends to make us vote against the advancement of everything else on your list.
Using an American football analogy which you probably won't understand, Conservative non-believers hatred of Christians makes about as much sense as everyone on a football team hating the pro bowl left tackle for protecting the quarterback's blind side to well.
They most definitely do belong, because each and every one thinks it is his/her duty to make the rest of the think and do as they do.
They are exactly the same.
I'm more like a bill board sign. I tell you what I believe, then if you don't like it, do what you want. I'm not chasing you down to pour it in your ears. I say it once, if you don't want or need what I have that's fine. But I'm bound by the creator to try to help spread the word. But like I said before, If I'm wrong, no big deal to you. But if you're wrong and I'm right, you're in a "HELL" of a mess!
I'm more like a bill board sign. I tell you what I believe, then if you don't like it, do what you want. I'm not chasing you down to pour it in your ears. I say it once, if you don't want or need what I have that's fine. But I'm bound by the creator to try to help spread the word. But like I said before, If I'm wrong, no big deal to you. But if you're wrong and I'm right, you're in a "HELL" of a mess!
And that bullshit right there is the problem every single damned time...people just cannot mind their own damned business and leave others to themselves.
And that bullshit right there is how it is justified.
And you turkeys wonder why you are being attacked from all angles, you bring it on yourselves.
Also, if you're saying we don't have any business telling you this, you're the one full of [bleep]. We have as much right as the other side and they're out beating the bushes telling everybody we're full of it and their ain't no God. Tell me I'm wrong about that. But like I said, I'm not beating you up with this. I won't come to your house and scream it in your ear. I just say it on sights like this or FB to try and get people to try it out. If you don't want what I got that's fine with me. You won't hear it from me again, unless you see me saying it on a sight like this. And then you have the right to ignore.
Also, if you're saying we don't have any business telling you this, you're the one full of [bleep]. We have as much right as the other side and they're out beating the bushes telling everybody we're full of it and their ain't no God. Tell me I'm wrong about that. But like I said, I'm not beating you up with this. I won't come to your house and scream it in your ear. I just say it on sights like this or FB to try and get people to try it out. If you don't want what I got that's fine with me. You won't hear it from me again, unless you see me saying it on a sight like this. And then you have the right to ignore.
Incorrect.
In my opinion there is God...but it is not my place to make others believe as I do.
But then I am not a controlling piece of šhit that has no respect for others.
Here is an idea, how about you go grab a sword and kick down all the brown peoples doors and do away with them if they don't believe as you do.
TF49 Thanks for proving my point. I'm sure you don't even realize it.
To me, the strongest argument for the existence of God is the extremely improbability that functional proteins were produced by random, material processes. One thing is for sure: religious believers can be very annoying. Humble and sincere ones who live their beliefs and are not ostentatious about it are admirable, but most (like jaguarTx---yes, I said it) are complete hypocrites and give Christianity a bad name.
Odd thought here.... I’m starting to like the “discussion” that we see here on these threads. Sure there is sharp disagreement but those that would consider themselves skeptics do indeed show up and participate. On some level and for some reason, they are here.
At a minimum, they are stirred up in their soul .........for some reason.
Seems ok to me.....
It's nothing personal for me....being a discussion forum, claims are made and claims are questioned. Seeing a bit of healthy scepticism for balance is a good thing.
You’re dodging again..... Creator? .... or Nothing created everything?
Nice false dichotomy. Upon what basis are you asserting there ever was your version of "nothing".
Here's the difference between a Lawerence krauss and a Theist.
Larry actually proposed workable hypothesis that could move us one step closer to a true understanding of the nature of our existence. As with many discoveries, it creates new questions and new lines of inquiry. Just because a line of inquiry creates new questions, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
i just hate it when der god of all leaves us to struggle down here on the urth, trying to figure out where we're from, where we are, and where we're going next.
i mean, one might think he/she/it would tell us. but oh no. not a chance.
i guess the payoff from such knowing would not be beneficial from his perspective?
what does he want to know, and what can we do to help him find his preferred answer?
mostly, i think we are biological beings like panthers, lions, tigers, and wildebeest looking for food.
we're doing it in a highly organized fashion, and we've been embued or embedded with a bit of consciousness.
if we could all manage to just believe the same thing, and the same way, wouldn't we all be oh so much better off?
Also, if you're saying we don't have any business telling you this, you're the one full of [bleep]. We have as much right as the other side and they're out beating the bushes telling everybody we're full of it and their ain't no God. Tell me I'm wrong about that. But like I said, I'm not beating you up with this. I won't come to your house and scream it in your ear. I just say it on sights like this or FB to try and get people to try it out. If you don't want what I got that's fine with me. You won't hear it from me again, unless you see me saying it on a sight like this. And then you have the right to ignore.
Incorrect.
In my opinion there is God...but it is not my place to make others believe as I do.
But then I am not a controlling piece of šhit that has no respect for others.
Here is an idea, how about you go grab a sword and kick down all the brown peoples doors and do away with them if they don't believe as you do.
Theres a vast difference in printing something on a public forum and making someone read it.
I am directed by God to tell and spread the Good News. I have never made anyone read what i typed. Why should i after ive done my duty. I dont now read the majority of their posts and i doubt i would read one of Satans minions threads.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament.
Below quoted from evidence demands a reason by Josh McDowell
Isn’t the Old Testament God a God of Hate and the New Testament God a God of Love?
Another of the frequent accusations against the Bible is that it contains two different conceptions of God.
The Old Testament allegedly presents only a God of wrath, while the New Testament allegedly depicts only a God of love.
The Old Testament contains stories of God’s commanding the destruction ofSodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, and many other stories of God’s judgment and wrath. The accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike deity in contradistinction to the advanced teachings of Jesus to love one another and to turn the other cheek, as contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
These ideas about God seem to be in direct conflict, but a moment’s reflection will show otherwise.
Jesus Himself declared that the Old Testament may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37). He also observed that God in the Old Testament had continually desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).
This attitude can be seen with statements such as, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked… and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).
God would not have destroyed certain nations except that He is a God of justice and their evil could not go unchecked and condoned.
He did intend and desire to punish them as a part of His plan, in consistency with His holy nature and jealousy for His wayfaring people. What He desires in consistency with His pure character, He does in justice, in their case, providing they have not repented and come into harmony with His nature (Jeremiah 18).
In the case of the Amorites, God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they did not (Genesis 15:16). Noah preached 120 years to his generation before the great flood (Genesis 6:3). The proper Old Testament picture is one of a very patient God who gives these people untold opportunities to repent and come into harmony with Him, and only when they continually refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds. Contrary to some popular belief, the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the Bible were made by the Lord Jesus Himself.
In Matthew 23, for example, He lashed out at the religious leaders of His day, calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them that their destiny was eternal banishment from God’s presence.
In Matthew 10:34 (KJV), Jesus says that the purpose of His mission is not to unite but to divide. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He goes on to say that His word will cause a father to be against his son, a mother against her daughter, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:35).
We find judgment as well as love scattered very pervasively throughout the New Testament, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the Old Testament.
God is consistent and unchanging, but different situations call for different emphases. Therefore, when the two testaments are read the way they were intended, they reveal the same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished.
Thank you for responding and bringing your thoughts to the conversation. I still can not agree. A God of justice would not have killed innocent people including kids. Jesus never condoned anything that evil.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
I think when a herd of cattle have the black leg you kill them all.
You judge the Creator of what you know not. Remember the fallen angels who came to earth and came unto women and had children? They were a curse and not to multiply. They had to die. You dont have to. Take care and God bless.
You’re dodging again..... Creator? .... or Nothing created everything?
Nice false dichotomy. Upon what basis are you asserting there ever was your version of "nothing".
Here's the difference between a Lawerence krauss and a Theist.
Larry actually proposed workable hypothesis that could move us one step closer to a true understanding of the nature of our existence. As with many discoveries, it creates new questions and new lines of inquiry. Just because a line of inquiry creates new questions, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
AS,
More dodging and bafflegab from you. Seems you can’t bring yourself to be pinned down. You know that “Everything” does not come from “Nothing” but you won’t admit it because that reinforces the case for the existence of a Creator.
In his talks, Krauss has apparently said that his works point to the “non-existence of a Creator.” He does not seem to think there is a false dichotomy here. Cosmology or Creator is what Larry talks about. The only alternative he sees to “Everything from Nothing” is indeed a Creator God…. which he dismisses as the existence of God cannot be shown with empirical evidence.
Given the nature of his book and given his own statements, Magic Larry did not propose a workable hypothesis at all. There is no start at “nothing” at all. In fact, he will talk about three types of “nothing” and all three of these are indeed something. If you venture out of your echo chamber you will see that many capable and credible physicists have characterized his book and notoriety as “embarrassing.” He’s just a book seller of paid speaker….. huckster?
At 1:39 ML says there is “no evidence for a deity.” Well, other than “Everything.” He says there is no need for God about the 7 minute mark. Well, only if one is gobbling up this nonsense.
Note that at 2:11, Colbert zings him when he describes the “first type of nothing” …… Magic Larry describes nothing and Colbert informs him that what he just described “is not nothing.”
He says at 5:19 he says there is no need for “supernatural shenanigans” as he has presumably showed how the universe could come from nothing. A statement based on his clear falsehoods.
Atheists heralded Krauss when the book first came out and now he is just an embarrassment, playing to the echo chamber crowd and the uninformed. But since the atheist will not allow himself out of the echo chamber, the atheists… and the agnostics ….. will search for the next reason to reject the reality of God.
are we in a zoo behind closed walls, or are we in an experiment and left alone to multiply (& survive)?
a lot of folks are shaking their heads as 7.5 billion people now find homage on the face of the earth.
surely what's going on is according to plan, and even the leaders know they're in the game.
we're being asked to interpret our reality, where we are, where been, and where next?
Interesting comment. I have heard that there is indeed an audience watching and seeing what is going on here on earth.
Here is the speculation....
Seems God had created many many.... perhaps billions of creatures prior to the creation of man. Then there was a rebellion in Heaven.... the fall of Lucifer.... now, the "Heavenly Hosts" are watching how the drama of the fall and redemption is playing out. The billions (?) of the Heavenly Hosts are seeing a demonstration of God's plan.
IDK, but you may be pretty close with your "zoo" comment.
Interesting comment. I have heard that there is indeed an audience watching and seeing what is going on here on earth.
Here is the speculation....
Seems God had created many many.... perhaps billions of creatures prior to the creation of man. Then there was a rebellion in Heaven.... the fall of Lucifer.... now, the "Heavenly Hosts" are watching how the drama of the fall and redemption is playing out. The billions (?) of the Heavenly Hosts are seeing a demonstration of God's plan.
IDK, but you may be pretty close with your "zoo" comment.
there might be more "life" in the oceans more situated or authorized to do space travel than us 'humans.'
i don't know. i was born and raised down here on the Urth, so i have no space travel history.
oh, it's either a zoo, or some sort of experiment. that's almost a military certainty.
the High Priests at NASA are doing their best, from Dr. Werner von Braun.
rocket ships to the moon, which is an alien satellite, helps us along?
You know that “Everything” does not come from “Nothing”
No, we do not know that.
Before you can assert this, you need to demonstrate that your version of a state of "nothing" ever existed.
To date, no one's been able to demonstrate this.
The difference between your and Larry's version of "nothing" is we know his actually existed.
Wait! There's more!
Here is a quote from a critic of Magic Larry the bookseller:
"The crucial physics here is totally speculative. It was entirely based on speculative ideas about quantum gravity which anyone working in the field would admit are not proven."
btw... I did buy the book and did read it. Maybe you should too.
Anyway, I am back east and have to hit the sack.... will play again tomorrow.
You know that “Everything” does not come from “Nothing”
No, we do not know that.
Before you can assert this, you need to demonstrate that your version of a state of "nothing" ever existed.
To date, no one's been able to demonstrate this.
The difference between your and Larry's version of "nothing" is we know his actually existed.
Good grief! His actually existed? Really?
I have to ask..... where did it come from? The three types of "nothing" and all three are "something."
Oh, and the "multiverse?" You're just kidding …..
Multiverse. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.
I don't know's more honest than "Magic Sky Daddy".
Anything can be explained by "Magic".
Quick thought before I turn off the lights.
Krauss has talked about the “multiverse” and I actually found that to be relevant. I have to paraphrase here.....He said the in the “multiverse” there may be universes where our known laws don’t apply. There may be universes where “different” laws of physics apply.
Yep, I find that relevant. I have described the “spirit world” as non-corporeal. God “lives” in a spirit world,that is unlike ours and it may be that different laws of physics apply there.
Carl Sagan: Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Primitive knuckle dragg'n man went from being spooked by their shadow cast before fire then mans creative thinking turned flashes of lighting and earthquakes into Gods, then it went to fear of entities they deemed invisible that dwell inside and outside a person and that threaten to cast one into a primitive fire...
as mysterious and boundless and unknowable as those spiritual entities are deemed to be, peabrain man then dumbed it all down and went gave them a gender, name and even a face.
Then you are told that you will be eternally separated from God and plunged into the lake of fire, yet you are also told that same God will still be there with you in hell, because you cannot actually escape his Omnipresence.
This is all a computer simulation. None of you exist and god is a computer nerd with too much time on his hands. Facetious assertion but go prove otherwise.
Carl Sagan: Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Virtual particles, quantum foam, and something from nothing, and how we know nothing isn't nothing, from of Fermilab.
A bit of review…… The Big Bang… the universe is measured to be 13.8 billion years old. It has a beginning and it is expanding. You will quibble here, but it seems there would be nothing for “Quantum Mechanics” to act on until …after….yep… after…..the Big Bang event.
There is no evidence that the Krauss “nothings” even existed prior to the Big Bang. Further, there is the thought out there that even the existence of “spacetime” much less the governing laws of physics may not have existed or was irrelevant prior to the Big Bang. IDK about that.
Here… is info from Wiki:
“Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[24] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity beyond the end of the Planck epoch.
This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae and measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, the time that has passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.[27] The agreement of independent measurements of this age supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the characteristics of the universe.
Despite being extremely dense at this time—far denser than is usually required to form a black hole—the universe did not re-collapse into a black hole. This may be explained by considering that commonly-used calculations and limits for gravitational collapse are usually based upon objects of relatively constant size, such as stars, and do not apply to rapidly expanding space such as the Big Bang.”
Science is still limited in understanding all of this, but it seems that the Big Band had to happen ..…..before….. the laws of physics had anything to “act on.” All we see in this physical world had a beginning. I believe the action initiator to be the Creator God.
The a-theist might reply that yes it happened and yes it had a beginning but there must be some other explanation other than God. “Since I am an atheist, any and all explanations involving God must be sneered at and deemed not applicable because “God” can’t be demonstrated in the laboratory.”
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament.
Below quoted from evidence demands a reason by Josh McDowell
Isn’t the Old Testament God a God of Hate and the New Testament God a God of Love?
Another of the frequent accusations against the Bible is that it contains two different conceptions of God.
The Old Testament allegedly presents only a God of wrath, while the New Testament allegedly depicts only a God of love.
The Old Testament contains stories of God’s commanding the destruction ofSodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, and many other stories of God’s judgment and wrath. The accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike deity in contradistinction to the advanced teachings of Jesus to love one another and to turn the other cheek, as contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
These ideas about God seem to be in direct conflict, but a moment’s reflection will show otherwise.
Jesus Himself declared that the Old Testament may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37). He also observed that God in the Old Testament had continually desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).
This attitude can be seen with statements such as, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked… and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).
God would not have destroyed certain nations except that He is a God of justice and their evil could not go unchecked and condoned.
He did intend and desire to punish them as a part of His plan, in consistency with His holy nature and jealousy for His wayfaring people. What He desires in consistency with His pure character, He does in justice, in their case, providing they have not repented and come into harmony with His nature (Jeremiah 18).
In the case of the Amorites, God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they did not (Genesis 15:16). Noah preached 120 years to his generation before the great flood (Genesis 6:3). The proper Old Testament picture is one of a very patient God who gives these people untold opportunities to repent and come into harmony with Him, and only when they continually refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds. Contrary to some popular belief, the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the Bible were made by the Lord Jesus Himself.
In Matthew 23, for example, He lashed out at the religious leaders of His day, calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them that their destiny was eternal banishment from God’s presence.
In Matthew 10:34 (KJV), Jesus says that the purpose of His mission is not to unite but to divide. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He goes on to say that His word will cause a father to be against his son, a mother against her daughter, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:35).
We find judgment as well as love scattered very pervasively throughout the New Testament, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the Old Testament.
God is consistent and unchanging, but different situations call for different emphases. Therefore, when the two testaments are read the way they were intended, they reveal the same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished.
Thank you for responding and bringing your thoughts to the conversation. I still can not agree. A God of justice would not have killed innocent people including kids. Jesus never condoned anything that evil.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
The assumption teachings by the modern Church that these were innocent people is nothing more than that, an assumption. Further study of their lineage shows who they actually were and innocent is not a word that accurately describes them. Jag gave a very good hint as to who they are while Mathew 13:24-30 describes them very well.
Your response to the modern church teachings is right on the money. Had they not lied or mislead people as to what was transpiring, what the true goal of Lucifer is, and who's who and from what lineage, then your response would not be accurate. Leave a chapter or a book out of the teaching of Mathematics, or Science, Biology, or any other important subject and the whole teaching goes to Hell in a hand basket right along with the teachers. It is the same with the History and the Bible.
Virtual particles, quantum foam, and something from nothing, and how we know nothing isn't nothing, from of Fermilab.
Just the next Magic Larry... the latest “great hope” from them non-god folks?
Redefining nothing ..... again.....so the science can “work?”
Lame....
Did he say “let’s start by assuming virtual particles exist?”
And then he provided the experimental evidence that they do.
Your level of disdain for science is amazing. That's one of the risks of blind faith. It blind the theist to the real progress of science.
Nope. I like science and think it is great. I do however have a low tolerance for baloney and mis-direction. Especially when so called scientists misuse their credentials and their data. Scientists can be out and out liars and charlatans. You and I and everyone else reading this know that.
To Lincoln’s credit, he did state assumptions. Ok.... but to then use this video and imply that it shows that something came from nothing is just pure baloney. What Larry does is just one step away from pure fraud. He just totally misdirects about what “nothing is.” Colbert caught that in a couple of minutes.
Let me ask a question..... does Krauss use his “science” for his own gain? You bet he does. Huckster.
So, how does the Big Bang happen? Something .....indeed everything from “nothing?” If you believe that when there is no scientific basis indicates ..... blind faith..... or maybe blinders, firmly in place and fixed solidly.
I read an article quite some time ago.... said that the physical laws as we know them were not applicable during the first instant of the Big Bang.......?????
If so, how can that be if everything can spontaneously come from nothing and be demonstrated with our physical laws?
Man has a feeling of self importance, and a need to believe in an afterlife. Because no evidence of an afterlife exists, he had to invent one. Quoting the bible is a emotional response not a logical one.( I'm sure the response to this from believers will be emotional or childish, not logical )
None in creation except humans have the brain to consider an afterlife, or from whence they came, or being moral for the sake of civilization and their kind, or going to the moon.
Amazing what being created in His image allows us to do, if we dream to.
created in His image ? isn't that a quote from the bible? Quoting from a fictional book (the bible) to prove a point is an emotional response,please use facts not what you want to believe is true. I'm sure if you answer it will be with another "belief" and not a fact. Not trying to sway your belief in god only get you to see the difference in fact and belief,seems emotional thinkers can't do this. In politics liberals use emotion just like you are using them in religion.
Man has a feeling of self importance, and a need to believe in an afterlife. Because no evidence of an afterlife exists, he had to invent one. Quoting the bible is a emotional response not a logical one.( I'm sure the response to this from believers will be emotional or childish, not logical )
Independent peer reviewed scientific studies of near death experiences?
Man has a feeling of self importance, and a need to believe in an afterlife. Because no evidence of an afterlife exists, he had to invent one. Quoting the bible is a emotional response not a logical one.( I'm sure the response to this from believers will be emotional or childish, not logical )
Independent peer reviewed scientific studies of near death experiences?
And what exactly where the results of those studies when notes were put on the tops of equipment in the operating rooms?
Exactly how many instances were there of people claiming near death experiences able to accurately report back what was written on the notes?
Where do you get the idea God has no jealousy? God tells us "My name is Jealous because I am a jealous God." (Exodus 34) You are anthropomorphizing God. You, and most including Christians, are missing the concept that God is Infinite. He fills the universe. Even the "space" between electrons and proton. That means when He loves He loves infinitely. Consider He set a rule that death is the punishment for sin and man's death cannot atone for his own sin. That's His rule and we can't do a thing to change it. So He sent His only Begotten Son to die for that punishment as a propitiation for all who will accept His Gift of His Son. When He hates He hates infinitely. Consider the Flood of Noah's time. Beautiful virgins, cute kittens, cuddly puppies, mean old men and caring mothers, lions, tigers, bears and yes even dinosaurs were all treated the same. We find their fossils in water born sediments all over the world.
No, this has nothing to do with me or 'my idea' - I am merely pointing out the contradictions between verses that clearly state that God is love, that Love is not jealous and verses that portray a vicious jealous God.
Once again....please take note of the attributes of a God of Love as described in the Bible as opposed to descriptions of a jealous vindictive God. The contradiction is undeniable. It is not something I am claiming, it is there in the bible;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8 "Love is not jealous." - 1 Corinthians 13:4 "God is jealous." - Exodus 20:5
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
As opposed to
Exodus 20:55 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
The Lord is a man of war, Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
I don't know who you are quoting but I never posted what you assigned to me as a quote. Let's try to be credible in who we assign as quoting--maybe it was an oversight ...
Bowsinger I think we have more than proven the alleged contradictions do not exist with every alleged contradiction that we have addressed with you. If you are not willing to see that, then more of the same will not profit you. I have not seen you post anything that cannot be reconciled. It comes down to what you are willing to believe and not what is honestly believable. One thing you are bringing to the forefront about the Bible is that it typically presents both sides of an issue so we can see it from all angles. A person gets very skewed in their perspectives when they always look at an issue from one vantage point. Are you willing to look at evidence from an honest perspective? Are you able to step outside your skepticism? Do you honestly seek truth? A child cannot learn from their teacher unless they first accept that their teacher has knowledge to impart. You will never find truth until you first accept that their is truth to be known...
I want to thank you for helping me prove the Bible is riddled with contradictions. I have a lot more of them.
Every one that I have posted and you have responded; you state that there is no contradiction. Then you explain and give reasons for the contradiction.
For example...“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Pet
You responded with a good explanation about the earth being destroyed and than renewed. So the “earth abideth forever” still remains a contradiction.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. Did the authors evolve from God killing children, raining burning sulfur, and genocide to the gentle teachings of Jesus?
You tell me to seek the truth. But I say onto you that the truth in not in you.
After 4 examples if you cannot see the contradictions are in your own mind and not the text, then responding to 6 more will only illustrate the same point. Not meaning to be disrespectful but the level you go to try to prove something that cannot be proven only weakens the position you hold. The contradictions that I addressed are not very difficult to resolve--it only takes some context, honest inquiry, and common sense.
After 4 examples of Bible contradictions that you cannot resolve...I am still waiting for your response to the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament. To me, that is the biggest one of all. Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
Meanwhile here is another contradiction Incest “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12 “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16
Again the 4 alleged contradictions I addressed were shown to be none at all. I did not notice any place where the explanation was logically refuted.
Explain how the God of Israel as portrayed in the OT is any different from God as declared in the NT? The establishment of the nation of Israel was given with specific boundaries. Those boundaries are in stark contrast to the methods employed by other pagan nations at that time when they conquered an enemy. Have you ever studied the qualifications given for the conquest of Canaan in comparison to the surrounding heathen practices of warfare?
Regarding incest: Those laws were given by Moses long after the time of Abraham had passed. In the early days of the human race there were close family intermarriages. When the human race expanded, the laws of incest were instituted by Moses. This is another example of an alleged contradiction that only exists in the mind of someone who neither knows nor understands Scripture and who is not making an honest inquiry regarding truth.
24 pages and not a single fact to prove there is a "god". Only the bible said this and that. It seems that once you are brainwashed into believing there is a god what you believe and fictional books become facts. Can't believers just say I believe in god but have no proof ? Will this stimulate 24 more pages of no facts?
Heck,
I'm not even asking for proof, just some good evidence. They can't even produce that.
Nah, the evidence for a Creator is right in front of you but you choose not to acknowledge it.
Which is crazier..... “God created the world”. Or the “The world came into existence from ‘nothing’.....’nothing created everything we see”
And don’t start that Magic Larry business again. Even a comic like a Stephen Colbert showed ML started with something. Larry just gave his book a misleading title.
With all due respect, the various forms of the Cosmological Arguments are nothing more than arguments from ignorance. Even if we accepted all the premises of the argument, which I don't, you are still left holding an empty sack, because there's no logical way to move from "there must be a creator", to "that creator is (your preferred version of your preferred god)".
So are you admitting that the Cosmological arguments require intelligent design or are you trying to avoid the statistical, mathematical, and scientific requirements from those arguments?
For those not on the short list to get into heaven, take heart that God is still with you in hell.
Psa 139:7-12 KJV -
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
This is another good example of the skeptics lack of Scriptural understanding: The word hell is used to mean grave or place of punishment. David is saying if he dies or takes his life and should he go to the grave or the abode of the wicked he will not escape the judgment of God. In the final judgment death and hell will give up their dead to stand before the Great White throne judgment to be tried for their deeds on earth. Rev.20:13
Alleged contradictions that are based on a lack of understanding are not legitimate contradictions--they are alleged contradictions that exist in the mind that is prejudiced against reconciliation or truth.
Over 40 years ago I prayed as hard as I knew how for the life of a small child who was my grandson. That didn't work out and I have learned to accept that. What was worse was the feeling I came away with that there was Nobody on the other end of the line.
Tried it again about 20 years later for a parent who was suffering and was ready to go. That same feeling came back; loud and clear.
I am very sorry for your losses. God does not always intervene in miraculous ways against the laws of nature--but He is the only one who can. We can become bitter against God because He did not answer prayers the way we wanted Him to ... all believers share in the experiences of the laws of nature taking effect and God not miraculously intervening on our behalf. Yet if I reject or get angry with God--nothing changes regarding my reality or pain. My experiences of pain cannot create or destroy the existence of God and they stay with me.
If I choose anger against God, I keep my reality and my pain and I add to it resentment and bitterness against God whom, we say, does not exist (an oxymoron) and my life becomes a meaningless chain of random and painful events.I have seen many believers face tremendous pain and suffering, and yield their pain to God, knowing He loves them in spite of these difficult circumstances and is still working for their good. I have seen them yield to His sovereign will and move on through life and reach out to others when they are suffering. I have seen their suffering equip them to minister to others in need. I have heard them testify that God has always worked all things out for their good. This is also my faith, and by God's grace I have needed to yield to His will when it was not my own, but I have also seen God move on my behalf in miraculous ways.
100 people can read the bible and they will come up with 100 different answers as to what different verses are trying to say. Of course each will believe only their interpretation is correct.
JW's and mormons are a large % but have had fanatics of all christian denominations pester me. "born agains" are the absolute worst. Jew's never seem to pester me yet they are the most persecuted I find that odd. Maybe I'll put my JW encounter from last week up later if anyone wants to hear it.
Born Agains make mockery of Christianity in my opinion. They wear their status as "saved" on their sleeve and are pretty condescending to anyone who dares to believe differently than them.
If born again Christians are not Christlike--that is too their shame...but we will never be Christlike unless we are truly born again.
If the complexity of Biology seems unlikely to have evolved, how much more complex is the existence of a Creator? If one requires a Creator, so does the other, ad infinitum.
How is the existence of a creator more complex? We recognize design as evidence of designers in our daily lives without puzzling over the novelty of that concept.
For those not on the short list to get into heaven, take heart that God is still with you in hell.
Psa 139:7-12 KJV -
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
This is another good example of the skeptics lack of Scriptural understanding: The word hell is used to mean grave or place of punishment. David is saying if he dies or takes his life and should he go to the grave or the abode of the wicked he will not escape the judgment of God. In the final judgment death and hell will give up their dead to stand before the Great White throne judgment to be tried for their deeds on earth. Rev.20:13
Alleged contradictions that are based on a lack of understanding are not legitimate contradictions--they are alleged contradictions that exist in the mind that is prejudiced against reconciliation or truth.
There you go again...making excuses for contradictions that you say don't exist.
100 people can read the bible and they will come up with 100 different answers as to what different verses are trying to say. Of course each will believe only their interpretation is correct.
There are fundamental truths of scripture that everyone can understand and believe at an early age--there's no real debate among true Christians on the great truths of historical Christianity--such as the Apostle's creed. There are other portions of the Bible that will challenge and engage our understanding and learning till we die. Within the boundaries of fundamental truth vigorous discussion is healthy. The Bible is an inexhaustible book. Some of the greatest men of the world and of our nation have been believers. People who believed in God have given this world the best form of government it has ever seen. They have even protected the rights of those who will spit on their God. Because of the God given rights of liberty of conscience established by God-fearing men, skeptics can freely make lists of alleged contradictions in the Scriptures which guided the lives of these great men--and in the end its truth will stand like the anvil which breaks all hammers.
For those not on the short list to get into heaven, take heart that God is still with you in hell.
Psa 139:7-12 KJV -
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
This is another good example of the skeptics lack of Scriptural understanding: The word hell is used to mean grave or place of punishment. David is saying if he dies or takes his life and should he go to the grave or the abode of the wicked he will not escape the judgment of God. In the final judgment death and hell will give up their dead to stand before the Great White throne judgment to be tried for their deeds on earth. Rev.20:13
Alleged contradictions that are based on a lack of understanding are not legitimate contradictions--they are alleged contradictions that exist in the mind that is prejudiced against reconciliation or truth.
There you go again...making excuses for contradictions that you say don't exist.
Look at this logically for a moment ... if you can cite scripture to show alleged contradictions and yet the use of more scripture will make it all reconcile--why would this be an excuse? Any document that explains itself, when considered in context and then in the full scope, does not have a conflict. This is standard protocol for interpreting any document. All we are asking of the skeptic is to make an honest inquiry, examine the immediate context and the full scope, and then use some common sense and good reasoning. Is that too much to ask of a skeptic?
Translation: even if you believe in God, if you don’t agree we’ll classify you as ‘other than a true Christian’.
How do you logically make that translation when I gave an example of the apostle's creed as a unifying Christian document? What I would take exception to is redefining historical Christianity and then being asked to be considered a Christian.
What does your faith in God allow for the souls of our beloved dogs? Do the dogs have an afterlife? If so, is it with the afterlife of their humans?
Nobody knows anything about an afterlife. But rereading "Rainbow Bridge" can help ease the lost of a beloved pet.
So if nobody knows anything about an afterlife--this would also include you--meaning that you cannot disprove it either. Furthermore you would not be convinced even if someone rose from the dead and testified of the truth of an afterlife would you? The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the indisputable proof that life does not pass on into an after of nothingness. No one here on this thread has been able to advance one good argument to dispute the facts of history that Jesus lived and was crucified. I presented 4 Roman witnesses -- 3 historians and 1 emperor -- none which were favorable to Christianity. They testify of His life and death. No one has from ancient history or modern times have been able to provide evidence that the body didn't rise. That was the only thing the ancient world needed to do to disprove the Christian claim. The resurrection of Christ will stand as a testimony for all times that when a man dies he does not pass into nothingness but will be called back to life to stand in judgment for his deeds and belief.
Men with far greater legal credentials than all the skeptics on this thread combined, have thoroughly researched the evidence and have concluded that the evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ is unassailable when honestly employing recognized and standard laws of evidence.
Some of these great men were instrumental in the founding and early development of our nation. The ones who have since been tearing our nation down are those men who are skeptical of the moral foundation on which it has stood.
What does your faith in God allow for the souls of our beloved dogs? Do the dogs have an afterlife? If so, is it with the afterlife of their humans?
Nobody knows anything about an afterlife. But rereading "Rainbow Bridge" can help ease the lost of a beloved pet.
Re carbon 12: Qualifier; it is not my ”faith” or what my faith in God would allow that is important on this issue. What matters is what a God said...what the Bible has to say about it.
Seems there is not much said about it but it seems the majority of bible scholars believe that indeed there are animals in Heaven. That they are created seems right. I am not sure about our beloved pets. It may be that pets have “souls” but it may be that they do not have eternal souls.
Having said that, it would seems to me...speculation only....That if we wanted our beloved pet with us and asked the Lord to make it happen, I would not be surprised if He would do exactly that.
Sorry for the inconclusive answer but that’s all I’ve got.
Btw.... I did have a lady pose a question similar to that.... she knew the dog had loved nothing more than chasing rabbits and did in fact catch a couple....hence her question....I chickened out and told her that dogs in heaven can chase rabbits and the rabbits love to be chased and enjoy the race but the dogs just can’t seem to catch them. Oh well...best I could do at the time....
If the complexity of Biology seems unlikely to have evolved, how much more complex is the existence of a Creator? If one requires a Creator, so does the other, ad infinitum.
How is the existence of a creator more complex? We recognize design as evidence of designers in our daily lives without puzzling over the novelty of that concept.
A creator must be able to think and act. These are not simple things. To create a universe is not a simple thing to do. To propose a Creator is not a solution to complexity, it just moves the goal post.
If the complexity of Biology seems unlikely to have evolved, how much more complex is the existence of a Creator? If one requires a Creator, so does the other, ad infinitum.
If the complexity of Biology seems unlikely to have evolved, how much more complex is the existence of a Creator? If one requires a Creator, so does the other, ad infinitum.
How is the existence of a creator more complex? We recognize design as evidence of designers in our daily lives without puzzling over the novelty of that concept.
A creator must be able to think and act. These are not simple things. To create a universe is not a simple thing to do. To propose a Creator is not a solution to complexity, it just moves the goal post.
That just simply explains why the Creator must be all wise, all powerful, and all knowing like the Bible says. You can't escape the logic that a Creator is required and must be greater than Creation, and as such, doesn't need your permission or belief to exist.
Its for certain, certain geniuses cant distinguish the difference between truth and proof of fact.
Rimfire, i farted this AM. That is the truth, but yet a fact i cant prove.
People fart. Everybody farts. People make claims that may or may not be true.
Your claim that you farted is a very ordinary claim. As a result, the standards of evidence for such a claim are low.
In contrast, a universe making super natural being is a extraordinary claims, and this claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you cannot offer anything that even qualifies as good evidence, let alone extraordinary.
Its for certain, certain geniuses cant distinguish the difference between truth and proof of fact.
Rimfire, i farted this AM. That is the truth, but yet a fact i cant prove.
People fart. Everybody farts. People make claims that may or may not be true.
Your claim that you farted is a very ordinary claim. As a result, the standards of evidence for such a claim are low.
In contrast, a universe making super natural being is a extraordinary claims, and this claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you cannot offer anything that even qualifies as good evidence, let alone extraordinary.
Again science demands it on the basis of the need for an uncaused first cause, the anthropic principles of life, and the biological irreducible complexity of life. To reject God as the Intelligent designer is unscientific and based purely on prejudice.
The problem with atheism and skepticism is that the mind becomes enslaved by the will and emotion of the heart and cannot honestly examine the evidence. The skeptic and atheist refuse to believe that which their passions wish to reject and their cover is that they need more evidence. Yet they cannot produce any credible proof that God does not exist.
Its for certain, certain geniuses cant distinguish the difference between truth and proof of fact.
Rimfire, i farted this AM. That is the truth, but yet a fact i cant prove.
People fart. Everybody farts. People make claims that may or may not be true.
Your claim that you farted is a very ordinary claim. As a result, the standards of evidence for such a claim are low.
In contrast, a universe making super natural being is a extraordinary claims, and this claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you cannot offer anything that even qualifies as good evidence, let alone extraordinary.
Again science demands it on the basis of the need for an uncaused first cause, the anthropic principles of life, and the biological irreducible complexity of life. To reject God as the Intelligent designer is unscientific and based purely on prejudice.
The problem with atheism and skepticism is that the mind becomes enslaved by the will and emotion of the heart and cannot honestly examine the evidence. The skeptic and atheist refuse to believe that which their passions wish to reject and their cover is that they need more evidence. Yet they cannot produce any credible proof that God does not exist.
Intelligent design and irreducible complexity had their day in court and were thoroughly trashed by a Christian professional witness and a Republican appointed Judge:
If the complexity of Biology seems unlikely to have evolved, how much more complex is the existence of a Creator? If one requires a Creator, so does the other, ad infinitum.
How is the existence of a creator more complex? We recognize design as evidence of designers in our daily lives without puzzling over the novelty of that concept.
A creator must be able to think and act. These are not simple things. To create a universe is not a simple thing to do. To propose a Creator is not a solution to complexity, it just moves the goal post.
That just simply explains why the Creator must be all wise, all powerful, and all knowing like the Bible says. You can't escape the logic that a Creator is required and must be greater than Creation, and as such, doesn't need your permission or belief to exist.
And you can't escape the "Argument from ignorance" and "Argument from incredulity" fallacies.
Its for certain, certain geniuses cant distinguish the difference between truth and proof of fact.
Rimfire, i farted this AM. That is the truth, but yet a fact i cant prove.
People fart. Everybody farts. People make claims that may or may not be true.
Your claim that you farted is a very ordinary claim. As a result, the standards of evidence for such a claim are low.
In contrast, a universe making super natural being is a extraordinary claims, and this claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you cannot offer anything that even qualifies as good evidence, let alone extraordinary.
Again science demands it on the basis of the need for an uncaused first cause, the anthropic principles of life, and the biological irreducible complexity of life. To reject God as the Intelligent designer is unscientific and based purely on prejudice.
The problem with atheism and skepticism is that the mind becomes enslaved by the will and emotion of the heart and cannot honestly examine the evidence. The skeptic and atheist refuse to believe that which their passions wish to reject and their cover is that they need more evidence. Yet they cannot produce any credible proof that God does not exist.
Irreducible complexity was put on trial. Both sides gave their evidence and arguments. The case irreducible complexity and intelligent design failed.
.... We as Christians want to tell others about the good news...
...If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?
Any reasonable parent [with all their transgressor faults] would not just warn their child, but would step-in and pull a child back or rescue them from imminent danger and even do the same for a strangers child....now human parents are not always right there on spot to prevent a child from all threats and imminent danger, ..but Christians say GOD is....yet how many kids get killed running onto the road and other fatal incidences and mishaps when that 'all loving' God is watching.?
Why does that God not step in when even good human parents with their fallibilities inevitably fall short?
God doesn't interfere cause he is testing the free will of those naive little kids?...or maybe he is punishing the transgressor parents by allowing the tragic but totally preventable death of their child?
Of course christians will 'send prayers' when they hear of such events, ..but why would anyone need to send prayers when it was Gods will that such children should lose their life.?...what are those prayers supposed to do that God hasn't already pre-determined and taken care of?
folks pray that the tsunami don't wash their house and family and only milking cow and plough bullock away, but when it does they pray for what they lost, then they start praying for God to make life better..?...yet 'evidently' He thought the survivors life is just how it is supposed to be [without all those things.]
Originally Posted by Jahrs
David had a very strong assurance of the presence God.
Well it seems if you love God you can (among other transgressions) conduct premeditated murder just to steal anothers wife, and still be considered a man after Gods own heart.
Yes you can be forgiven but there is a high cost to pay for it. David’s plan to cover up what he did failed and God exposed his sin through the prophet Nathan. He paid a huge price for the adultery and murder that he committed. He lost the kingdom and his family as well, the nation of Israel suffered too.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament.
Below quoted from evidence demands a reason by Josh McDowell
Isn’t the Old Testament God a God of Hate and the New Testament God a God of Love?
Another of the frequent accusations against the Bible is that it contains two different conceptions of God.
The Old Testament allegedly presents only a God of wrath, while the New Testament allegedly depicts only a God of love.
The Old Testament contains stories of God’s commanding the destruction ofSodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, and many other stories of God’s judgment and wrath. The accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike deity in contradistinction to the advanced teachings of Jesus to love one another and to turn the other cheek, as contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
These ideas about God seem to be in direct conflict, but a moment’s reflection will show otherwise.
Jesus Himself declared that the Old Testament may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37). He also observed that God in the Old Testament had continually desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).
This attitude can be seen with statements such as, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked… and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).
God would not have destroyed certain nations except that He is a God of justice and their evil could not go unchecked and condoned.
He did intend and desire to punish them as a part of His plan, in consistency with His holy nature and jealousy for His wayfaring people. What He desires in consistency with His pure character, He does in justice, in their case, providing they have not repented and come into harmony with His nature (Jeremiah 18).
In the case of the Amorites, God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they did not (Genesis 15:16). Noah preached 120 years to his generation before the great flood (Genesis 6:3). The proper Old Testament picture is one of a very patient God who gives these people untold opportunities to repent and come into harmony with Him, and only when they continually refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds. Contrary to some popular belief, the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the Bible were made by the Lord Jesus Himself.
In Matthew 23, for example, He lashed out at the religious leaders of His day, calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them that their destiny was eternal banishment from God’s presence.
In Matthew 10:34 (KJV), Jesus says that the purpose of His mission is not to unite but to divide. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He goes on to say that His word will cause a father to be against his son, a mother against her daughter, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:35).
We find judgment as well as love scattered very pervasively throughout the New Testament, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the Old Testament.
God is consistent and unchanging, but different situations call for different emphases. Therefore, when the two testaments are read the way they were intended, they reveal the same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished.
Thank you for responding and bringing your thoughts to the conversation. I still can not agree. A God of justice would not have killed innocent people including kids. Jesus never condoned anything that evil.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
This is the most difficult question in the Bible to answer. I’m not going to pretend to have an answer for it because I don’t know. I struggle with it as well.
What does your faith in God allow for the souls of our beloved dogs? Do the dogs have an afterlife? If so, is it with the afterlife of their humans?
Nobody knows anything about an afterlife. But rereading "Rainbow Bridge" can help ease the lost of a beloved pet.
So if nobody knows anything about an afterlife--this would also include you--meaning that you cannot disprove it either. Furthermore you would not be convinced even if someone rose from the dead and testified of the truth of an afterlife would you? The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the indisputable proof that life does not pass on into an after of nothingness. No one here on this thread has been able to advance one good argument to dispute the facts of history that Jesus lived and was crucified. I presented 4 Roman witnesses -- 3 historians and 1 emperor -- none which were favorable to Christianity. They testify of His life and death. No one has from ancient history or modern times have been able to provide evidence that the body didn't rise. That was the only thing the ancient world needed to do to disprove the Christian claim. The resurrection of Christ will stand as a testimony for all times that when a man dies he does not pass into nothingness but will be called back to life to stand in judgment for his deeds and belief.
Men with far greater legal credentials than all the skeptics on this thread combined, have thoroughly researched the evidence and have concluded that the evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ is unassailable when honestly employing recognized and standard laws of evidence.
Some of these great men were instrumental in the founding and early development of our nation. The ones who have since been tearing our nation down are those men who are skeptical of the moral foundation on which it has stood.
I have never tried to prove or disprove anything. What you call proof; most call faith. The best minds in the world have come down on both sides. Some believe and some do not. And many that do believe call God different names that may not be in your Bible. There are many “bibles.”
“What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job”. Carl Sagan's Contact
.... We as Christians want to tell others about the good news...
...If you knew that your child was heading for danger would you not warn him because of your love and foreknowledge?
Just like the poofters that insist that everyone support their rainbow flag.
Guess what sport...people don't want your ideals, nor their's pushed in their face.
How about you keep your proselytising to yourself and worship quietly
Muslims, peta, anti firearms nuts, socialists, greenies, vegans, christians...the list of arseholes determined to "convince" you is endless.
Talk about pot calling the kettle black.
I don’t insist on or shove anything down anyone’s face but at the same time I won’t fly quietly under the radar either. Your intolerance of Christians is a serious problem in this country.
TF49 Thanks for proving my point. I'm sure you don't even realize it.
To me, the strongest argument for the existence of God is the extremely improbability that functional proteins were produced by random, material processes. One thing is for sure: religious believers can be very annoying. Humble and sincere ones who live their beliefs and are not ostentatious about it are admirable, but most (like jaguarTx---yes, I said it) are complete hypocrites and give Christianity a bad name.
Odd thought here.... I’m starting to like the “discussion” that we see here on these threads. Sure there is sharp disagreement but those that would consider themselves skeptics do indeed show up and participate. On some level and for some reason, they are here.
At a minimum, they are stirred up in their soul .........for some reason.
Seems ok to me.....
I’m a little late in replying but wanted to say that I agree totally with your statement. It is good to discuss these issues in agreement or not.
TF, they are purely pushing Satans agenda as his minions. They dont listen.
There was nothing and then there was an explosion and a while later, poof, here we are, just a more advanced amoeba. That makes sense to them.
All the emperical evidence means nothing to them, no matter how astronomical the odds all the filled prophecies occuring, they bet their souls on the chance they have grasped the correct grain of sand on Myrle Beach. Its because He has, as He said, blinded them. You can explain God and you can explain the Bible for you and Him, but not for them. There is no discussion. Their minds are closed.
Do yourself good, and proclaim Gods grace and wonders and miracles to His wonders, and as He said, even the rocks.
Well, I guess, matter of fact, thats what youre doing.
My Mom and Dad live on in my mind, because they are alive. Does your dogs sire live in its mind?
For those not on the short list to get into heaven, take heart that God is still with you in hell.
Psa 139: KJV - 7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
This is another good example of the skeptics lack of Scriptural understanding: The word hell is used to mean grave or place of punishment. David is saying if he dies or takes his life and should he go to the grave or the abode of the wicked he will not escape the judgment of God. In the final judgment death and hell will give up their dead to stand before the Great White throne judgment to be tried for their deeds on earth. Rev.20:13
You say one is interimly punished [whilst waiting in the grave] before the white throne final judgment?- then following the white throne one is cast into the lake of fire as punishment?
Why would God prematurely punish a person before his or her case was tried ?
are not Both the saved and unsaved who have died , all in their graves “sleeping” until the resurrection day?
and regarding the lake of Fire punishment,... thats not an eternal torture form of punishment, cause to be tortured and tormented for ever would mean one would have to be immortal...and scripture is clear that one shall suffer the 2nd Death...which to me means total annihilation. " And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14) "I turned you to ashes ...you shall.be no more for ever" ( Ezekiel 28) “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). “Rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).
Its for certain, certain geniuses cant distinguish the difference between truth and proof of fact.
Rimfire, i farted this AM. That is the truth, but yet a fact i cant prove.
People fart. Everybody farts. People make claims that may or may not be true.
Your claim that you farted is a very ordinary claim. As a result, the standards of evidence for such a claim are low.
In contrast, a universe making super natural being is a extraordinary claims, and this claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you cannot offer anything that even qualifies as good evidence, let alone extraordinary.
Again science demands it on the basis of the need for an uncaused first cause, the anthropic principles of life, and the biological irreducible complexity of life. To reject God as the Intelligent designer is unscientific and based purely on prejudice.
The problem with atheism and skepticism is that the mind becomes enslaved by the will and emotion of the heart and cannot honestly examine the evidence. The skeptic and atheist refuse to believe that which their passions wish to reject and their cover is that they need more evidence. Yet they cannot produce any credible proof that God does not exist.
Intelligent design and irreducible complexity had their day in court and were thoroughly trashed by a Christian professional witness and a Republican appointed Judge:
Outlawing Creation science was not based on science but rather upon previous liberal interpretations of the constitution. The Declaration of Independence says our rights come from our Creator who made all men equal. When Creation science is outlawed we are attacking both science and the foundation of equal rights. Our Founders were creationists.
Ancient writings are the witnesses because this is when the books were written. No one has problems with all the other ancient documents of the world such as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Yet there are far less manuscript evidence for those documents than the Bible. It's a matter of having faith that is based on fact or evidence or on your own opinions and preferences. We have already covered that all religions cannot be equally credible because they disagree and I or you could simply make up our own. These leaves us with which one. There is only one book that began with the inception of alphabetic writing and has been in continuous usage ever since. There is only one that has a such a large volume of fulfilled prophecies.
God has present testimony to His truth today each timeives are changed from selfishness to selflessness by Jesus Christ.
It is simple good folks. Like Saul, you need to see the Light. I could post an image, but the non believers would find fault with that also.
The gospels have several contradictory accounts of Saul's conversion experience....which was probably an epileptic seizure.
The contradictions are only apparent to those who seek to deny and judge Him and not to those who believe. Your testimony reveals He has not revealed Himself to you.
I had the sweetest little female GSP who loved ALMOST all. I kept an eye on those she didnt.
Ancient writings are the witnesses because this is when the books were written. No one has problems with all the other ancient documents of the world such as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Yet there are far less manuscript evidence for those documents than the Bible. It's a matter of having faith that is based on fact or evidence or on your own opinions and preferences. We have already covered that all religions cannot be equally credible because they disagree and I or you could simply make up our own. These leaves us with which one. There is only one book that began with the inception of alphabetic writing and has been in continuous usage ever since. There is only one that has a such a large volume of fulfilled prophecies.
God has present testimony to His truth today each timeives are changed from selfishness to selflessness by Jesus Christ.
Homer's Iliad not a historical account of events either. There are multiple conflicting versions of the Iliad that evolved over time. It may have been written and re-written over a 300 year period.
As for your claims the bible began with the inception of alphabetic writing, that's just silly. Egypt has a 24 character alphabetic system that predated the earliest hebrew text by 500+ years.
Outlawing Creation science was not based on science but rather upon previous liberal interpretations of the constitution. The Declaration of Independence says our rights come from our Creator who made all men equal. When Creation science is outlawed we are attacking both science and the foundation of equal rights. Our Founders were creationists.[/quote]
The point of the trial was not to 'ban creation science' but determine whether creationism in the form of intelligent design is science. The defenders of intelligent design could not prove the proposition, and in fact their claim of irreducible complexity was show to be false.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament.
Below quoted from evidence demands a reason by Josh McDowell
Isn’t the Old Testament God a God of Hate and the New Testament God a God of Love?
Another of the frequent accusations against the Bible is that it contains two different conceptions of God.
The Old Testament allegedly presents only a God of wrath, while the New Testament allegedly depicts only a God of love.
The Old Testament contains stories of God’s commanding the destruction ofSodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, and many other stories of God’s judgment and wrath. The accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike deity in contradistinction to the advanced teachings of Jesus to love one another and to turn the other cheek, as contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
These ideas about God seem to be in direct conflict, but a moment’s reflection will show otherwise.
Jesus Himself declared that the Old Testament may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37). He also observed that God in the Old Testament had continually desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).
This attitude can be seen with statements such as, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked… and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).
God would not have destroyed certain nations except that He is a God of justice and their evil could not go unchecked and condoned.
He did intend and desire to punish them as a part of His plan, in consistency with His holy nature and jealousy for His wayfaring people. What He desires in consistency with His pure character, He does in justice, in their case, providing they have not repented and come into harmony with His nature (Jeremiah 18).
In the case of the Amorites, God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they did not (Genesis 15:16). Noah preached 120 years to his generation before the great flood (Genesis 6:3). The proper Old Testament picture is one of a very patient God who gives these people untold opportunities to repent and come into harmony with Him, and only when they continually refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds. Contrary to some popular belief, the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the Bible were made by the Lord Jesus Himself.
In Matthew 23, for example, He lashed out at the religious leaders of His day, calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them that their destiny was eternal banishment from God’s presence.
In Matthew 10:34 (KJV), Jesus says that the purpose of His mission is not to unite but to divide. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He goes on to say that His word will cause a father to be against his son, a mother against her daughter, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:35).
We find judgment as well as love scattered very pervasively throughout the New Testament, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the Old Testament.
God is consistent and unchanging, but different situations call for different emphases. Therefore, when the two testaments are read the way they were intended, they reveal the same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished.
Thank you for responding and bringing your thoughts to the conversation. I still can not agree. A God of justice would not have killed innocent people including kids. Jesus never condoned anything that evil.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
This is the most difficult question in the Bible to answer. I’m not going to pretend to have an answer for it because I don’t know. I struggle with it as well.
Your struggle has been an honest one. I am sure you have figured out that my struggle is with those who claim they have all the answers.
"It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.” ― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space
It is simple good folks. Like Saul, you need to see the Light. I could post an image, but the non believers would find fault with that also.
The gospels have several contradictory accounts of Saul's conversion experience....which was probably an epileptic seizure.
Funny, I don't recall Saul's conversion being mentioned in the Gospels.
Brain glitch. I was thinking about contradictions in the new testament and wrote 'gospels'
Acts 9: men with Saul hear a voice, but see no one. Acts 22:6-9: men with Saul saw the light but did not hear the voice.
Fair enough.
Now for your 'contradictions'. The New Testament was written over a long period of time long after Christ ascended into Heaven approximately thirty years after the fact. The Epistles and Acts of the Apostles were written over time up until about the 90's AD. By the 60s AD a lot of the original eye-witnesses were dying off and those who followed The Way were getting whacked on a regular basis. The Gospel Mark is most likely the first gospel written and it was primarily directed to the the Romans. St. Mark is the patron St. of Rome today BTW. The rest of the synoptic gospels were written after Mark and it's believed that they used each others notes. St. John The Theologian wrote his gospel last. It differs from the synoptic gospels as St. John is demonstrating and making the case of Christ's divinity.
The New Testament as we know it wasn't compiled until the late 300s to early 400s AD. So yes there may be some errors in detail due to copying and recopying of Epistles and notes, but that doesn't disprove the revelation of Jesus Christ and who He is. Rather it's fallible men writing down events as they remembered them. You can find the same sort of errors or perceptions of details in a modern day police report about an incident occurring within the last few hours or even a "nooz" report if they are being honest and aren't purposely making schitt up.
Now for your 'contradictions'. The New Testament was written over a long period of time long after Christ ascended into Heaven approximately thirty years after the fact. The Epistles and Acts of the Apostles were written over time up until about the 90's AD. By the 60s AD a lot of the original eye-witnesses were dying off and those who followed The Way were getting whacked on a regular basis. The Gospel Mark is most likely the first gospel written and it was primarily directed to the the Romans. St. Mark is the patron St. of Rome today BTW. The rest of the synoptic gospels were written after Mark and it's believed that they used each others notes. St. John The Theologian wrote his gospel last. It differs from the synoptic gospels as St. John is demonstrating and making the case of Christ's divinity.
The New Testament as we know it wasn't compiled until the late 300s to early 400s AD. So yes there may be some errors in detail due to copying and recopying of Epistles and notes, but that doesn't disprove the revelation of Jesus Christ and who He is. Rather it's fallible men writing down events as they remembered them. You can find the same sort of errors or perceptions of details in a modern day police report about an incident occurring within the last few hours or even a "nooz" report if they are being honest and aren't purposely making schitt up.
Whoever wrote the books and letters and whenever it was all put together by various Church Councils, it still remains that both the OT and the NT have logical inconsistencies and contradictions....the Saul/Paul conversion event as it is written and presented is contradictory. Apologists put it down to human error and uncertainty associated with these events. But if we are talking about a set of books/woks claimed to be inspired by the Creator of the universe, why do we have these errors and contradictions. The errors and contradictions should not need to be explained, they should not be there in the first place. The conversion account appears more like a epileptic fit;
''Rather than hearing God talking to him, scientists in Israel have suggested Saint Paul’s revelation could have been brought about by an epileptic seizure, The Times reports.
Researchers at Hadassah Medical Centre, linked to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, have scanned the brain of a man during a seizure, while he also had visions of God and noticed a surge of activity in the organ’s frontal lobe, which is linked to a belief people are interacting with a deity.''
You can find the same sort of errors or perceptions of details in a modern day police report about an incident occurring within the last few hours...
If you were up on charges, a good defence attorney would question /call into doubt and argue tooth and nail against the veracity of police reports and eyewitness claims with serious indescrepencies. . the attorney would also have the ability to put police and witnesses on the stand for cross-examination to cast further doubts as to their reliability and worth in trying to get a convicton.
You would be outraged if a conviction was made on the basis of such indescrepencies and without your attorney conducting thorough cross examination, ....yet when it comes to the indescrepencies/veracity of scripture and the lack of ability to cross examine writers and witnesses from thousands of years ago Christians are more than happy to accept such as largely irrelevant when presenting their argument.
In others words the relatively weak questionable standards Christians apply to forming a personal conviction towards their faith or subjective belief are not standards they would be happy or willing to accept as sufficient for conviction in a modern courtroom when they find themselves on trial.
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
It is simple good folks. Like Saul, you need to see the Light. I could post an image, but the non believers would find fault with that also.
The gospels have several contradictory accounts of Saul's conversion experience....which was probably an epileptic seizure.
Funny, I don't recall Saul's conversion being mentioned in the Gospels.
Brain glitch. I was thinking about contradictions in the new testament and wrote 'gospels'
Acts 9: men with Saul hear a voice, but see no one. Acts 22:6-9: men with Saul saw the light but did not hear the voice.
Think about this for a bit. Can you see a way where both statements can be true?
An automobile was involved in a traffic accident and the the driver took off. One witness said it was white with a blue interior. Another witness said it had a large dent on the right rear quarter panel. The first witness did not report that. Can both witnesses be telling the truth or is this an obvious contradiction?
Ancient writings are the witnesses because this is when the books were written. No one has problems with all the other ancient documents of the world such as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Yet there are far less manuscript evidence for those documents than the Bible. It's a matter of having faith that is based on fact or evidence or on your own opinions and preferences. We have already covered that all religions cannot be equally credible because they disagree and I or you could simply make up our own. These leaves us with which one. There is only one book that began with the inception of alphabetic writing and has been in continuous usage ever since. There is only one that has a such a large volume of fulfilled prophecies.
God has present testimony to His truth today each timeives are changed from selfishness to selflessness by Jesus Christ.
Homer's Iliad not a historical account of events either. There are multiple conflicting versions of the Iliad that evolved over time. It may have been written and re-written over a 300 year period.
As for your claims the bible began with the inception of alphabetic writing, that's just silly. Egypt has a 24 character alphabetic system that predated the earliest hebrew text by 500+ years.
The point is simply whether or not a document can be verified as preserved similar to its original state. The same could be said of the annals of Tacitus. The point is that no reputable scholar disputes the original existence of these documents and they have far less manuscript evidence than the Bible--so my point remains that Bible stands above all other ancient documents in verification of authenticity.
Now for the facts of alphabetic writing:
Wikipedia - The history of alphabetic writing goes back to the consonantal writing system used for Semitic languages [descendants of Shem] in the Levant [eastern Mediterranean area] in the 2nd millennium BCE. Most or nearly all alphabetic scripts used throughout the world today ultimately go back to this Semitic proto-alphabet. Its first origins can be traced back to a Proto-Sinaitic script developed in Ancient Egypt to represent the language of Semitic-speaking workers in Egypt. This script was partly influenced by the older Egyptian hieratic, a cursive script related to Egyptian hieroglyphs. Mainly through Phoenician and Aramaic, two closely related members of the Semitic family of scripts that were in use during the early first millennium BCE, the Semitic alphabet became the ancestor of multiple writing systems across the Middle East, Europe, northern Africa and South Asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet “Sometime during the second millennium B.C. (estimated between 1850 and 1700 B.C.), a group of Semitic-speaking people adapted a subset of Egyptian hieroglyphics to represent the sounds of their language. This Proto-Sinaitic script is often considered the first alphabetic writing system, where unique symbols stood for single consonants (vowels were omitted). Written from right to left and spread by Phoenician maritime merchants who occupied part of modern Lebanon, Syria and Israel, this consonantal alphabet—also known as an abjad—consisted of 22 symbols simple enough for ordinary traders to learn and draw, making its use much more accessible and widespread. By the 8th century B.C., the Phoenician alphabet had spread to Greece, where it was refined and enhanced to record the Greek language.” https://www.history.com/news/who-created-the-first-alphabet “… the modern Hebrew alphabet may be regarded as a continuation of the original alphabet created more than 3,500 years ago. The Hebrew order of the letters seems to be the oldest.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/alphabet-writing
The conclusion of scholarship is that recent evidence indicates that the Hebrew Semitic alphabet is the fountain head of modern alphabetic writing--and that development occurred when the Hebrews were in Eqypt. The early proto-Sinaitic document of writing is found near Eqypt and Sinai -- so it verifies the Biblical account of the Hebrews being in Eqypt where Moses developed the Hebrew alphabetic writing which conveyed the Torah. That original Hebrew alphabet is the forerunner of the modern Hebrew. However the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing has passed into disuse.
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Outlawing Creation science was not based on science but rather upon previous liberal interpretations of the constitution. The Declaration of Independence says our rights come from our Creator who made all men equal. When Creation science is outlawed we are attacking both science and the foundation of equal rights. Our Founders were creationists.
The point of the trial was not to 'ban creation science' but determine whether creationism in the form of intelligent design is science. The defenders of intelligent design could not prove the proposition, and in fact their claim of irreducible complexity was show to be false. [/quote]
Partially correct--it was disproved on the basis that science as defined by the government to be legally taught in public schools could not include religious connotations--which they said intelligent design does, because it is creation science and linked to religious connotations and hence not pure science. This is a great example where the modern court system was used by liberals to interpret law contrary to the beliefs of our founders who framed the constitution and to use an irreligious view of science to exclude anything as science that did not meet their irreligious definition. The only thing the prosecution needed to prove was that there was a link between intelligent design and creation science for it to be considered illegal to be taught in school. This was based on previous case law which declares evolutionary science pure science because it has no religious link. I knew the people on the school board and some of those who initiated the suit against the board and the school district. In a pure scientific debate without legal implications of previous liberal case law, irreducible complexity is clearly established as a fact--the most simple cell cannot exist without all its components. Even good lawyers arguing a bad case cannot disprove that.
You can find the same sort of errors or perceptions of details in a modern day police report about an incident occurring within the last few hours...
If you were up on charges, a good defence attorney would question /call into doubt and argue tooth and nail against the veracity of police reports and eyewitness claims with serious indescrepencies. . the attorney would also have the ability to put police and witnesses on the stand for cross-examination to cast further doubts as to their reliability and worth in trying to get a convicton.
You would be outraged if a conviction was made on the basis of such indescrepencies and without your attorney conducting thorough cross examination, ....yet when it comes to the indescrepencies/veracity of scripture and the lack of ability to cross examine writers and witnesses from thousands of years ago Christians are more than happy to accept such as largely irrelevant when presenting their argument.
In others words the relatively weak questionable standards Christians apply to forming a personal conviction towards their faith or subjective belief are not standards they would be happy or willing to accept as sufficient for conviction in a modern courtroom when they find themselves on trial.
Another excellent example of skeptics trying to have it both ways: On one hand they say the evidence is dismissed unless it's contemporary to the event--hence the gospels are dismissed because they were not written in real time as the events were unfolding. Then out of the other side of their mouth they say because it is ancient information and we cannot cross examine the witnesses today so we can dismiss all the evidence. You can't have it logically both ways. You cannot ask for early evidence and then dismiss it as evidence because it is early. Allow a skeptic to argue long enough and they will invariably contradict themselves and void out the weight of their own arguments. They would fare better looking for their own contradictions rather than trying to find them in the Bible. Records of court cases are kept along with the evidence to support the judgment. We have the records of those who were hostile to the gospel accounts and who investigated those accounts and they conclusively show Jesus as a man of history.
Again you cannot cross examine witnesses to the American Revolution can you ... ?
You can find the same sort of errors or perceptions of details in a modern day police report about an incident occurring within the last few hours...
If you were up on charges, a good defence attorney would question /call into doubt and argue tooth and nail against the veracity of police reports and eyewitness claims with serious indescrepencies. . the attorney would also have the ability to put police and witnesses on the stand for cross-examination to cast further doubts as to their reliability and worth in trying to get a convicton.
You would be outraged if a conviction was made on the basis of such indescrepencies and without your attorney conducting thorough cross examination, ....yet when it comes to the indescrepencies/veracity of scripture and the lack of ability to cross examine writers and witnesses from thousands of years ago Christians are more than happy to accept such as largely irrelevant when presenting their argument.
In others words the relatively weak questionable standards Christians apply to forming a personal conviction towards their faith or subjective belief are not standards they would be happy or willing to accept as sufficient for conviction in a modern courtroom when they find themselves on trial.
Another excellent example of skeptics trying to have it both ways: On one hand they say the evidence is dismissed unless it's contemporary to the event--hence the gospels are dismissed because they were not written in real time as the events were unfolding. Then out of the other side of their mouth they say because it is ancient information and we cannot cross examine the witnesses today so we can dismiss all the evidence. You can't have it logically both ways. You cannot ask for early evidence and then dismiss it as evidence because it is early. Allow a skeptic to argue long enough and they will invariably contradict themselves and void out the weight of their own arguments. They would fare better looking for their own contradictions rather than trying to find them in the Bible. Records of court cases are kept along with the evidence to support the judgment. We have the records of those who were hostile to the gospel accounts and who investigated those accounts and they conclusively show Jesus as a man of history.
Again you cannot cross examine witnesses to the American Revolution can you ... ?
No you can't cross examine them, but you can search for writings, manuscripts other hidden writings and piece it all together. The programming that has taken place concerning the American Revolution is just as real as the programming that has taken place concerning the Bible. The hidden writings not being accepted by Bible scholars and teachers is the same propaganda teaching as that concerning the American Revolution just to name some for instances. Deception by those who are trying to do good but have been deceived is still deception. You might want to give Lucifer more credit than you do. He didn't get the position he had while in Heaven by being stupid. And lest you think he was tossed out and dumbed down, the Bible accounts of his many times walking right in without an invite and talking to God. So not considering that Lucifer didn't deceive some of these human writers is absolute folly. 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.
For those not on the short list to get into heaven, take heart that God is still with you in hell.
Psa 139: KJV - 7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
This is another good example of the skeptics lack of Scriptural understanding: The word hell is used to mean grave or place of punishment. David is saying if he dies or takes his life and should he go to the grave or the abode of the wicked he will not escape the judgment of God. In the final judgment death and hell will give up their dead to stand before the Great White throne judgment to be tried for their deeds on earth. Rev.20:13
You say one is interimly punished [whilst waiting in the grave] before the white throne final judgment?- then following the white throne one is cast into the lake of fire as punishment?
Why would God prematurely punish a person before his or her case was tried ?
are not Both the saved and unsaved who have died , all in their graves “sleeping” until the resurrection day?
and regarding the lake of Fire punishment,... thats not an eternal torture form of punishment, cause to be tortured and tormented for ever would mean one would have to be immortal...and scripture is clear that one shall suffer the 2nd Death...which to me means total annihilation. " And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14) "I turned you to ashes ...you shall.be no more for ever" ( Ezekiel 28) “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). “Rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
We are judged in this world already based on our acceptance or rejection of Christ and our eternal destiny is declared accordingly. The scriptures testify the souls of the saints leave this world to be with Christ and their bodies lie in the grave. The wicked souls go to hell and their bodies lie in the grave. In the general resurrection the souls of wicked dead are reunited with their bodies to stand before the final tribunal. The purpose of the final judgment is not to determine guilt but to show the evidence of guilt before the whole world and to execute the degree of their final sentence. All those whose names are not written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire.
The second death has never meant annihilation just like the first death never meant annihilation. The lake of fire is the second death and the wicked are cast into it where the beast and the false prophet ARE ... along with them the torment is forever. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
2Thess. 1:7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Destroyed equals an everlasting destruction of torment and separation from God.
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
I consider this a very fair question as long as it is understood to be answered within the context of those times. I would offer the following to consider:
a. Their moral pollution had reached its fullness and had become generational affecting even the small children. Gen. 15:16; Exodus 20:5 b. The pagan women would have led Israel’s children into idolatry. Deut.20:16,17; Num.25:1-3 c. God intended to preserve Israel in order to bless the whole world--in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed (Gen.22:18). Other contemporary nations also practiced genocide but only in self-interest. d. The children in death were saved, while in life they would have been depraved and lost (Matt.19:14). It shows us the depravity of their idolatry, which was really demonic worship as it included child sacrifice (Deut.32:16,17; Lev.18:21). e. God also set borders on Israel so that they could not expand beyond them in the practice of “genocide” to claim their inheritance. The border limits set them apart as a far “kinder nation” than the typical expansionist/raiding mentality of their neighbors. f. They also were to be kind to the strangers and remember their hardship in Egypt (Ex.23:9). g. (Deut.2:25) God placed his fear on the nations ahead of driving them out. They were forewarned and given the opportunity to leave if they chose to do so (Deut.20). Israel was driving out nations mightier than they by the help of God were not overwhelming them with superior numbers. (Deut.11:23) h. People who wished to voluntarily join with Israel were recognized—Rahab, Ruth, Uriah the Hittite,
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
The Bible shows scientific knowledge beyond what the writers knew themselves: Isa. 40: 22 It is he who sits above the "circle" of the earth,
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
I consider this a very fair question as long as it is understood to be answered within the context of those times. I would offer the following to consider:
a. Their moral pollution had reached its fullness and had become generational affecting even the small children. Gen. 15:16; Exodus 20:5 b. The pagan women would have led Israel’s children into idolatry. Deut.20:16,17; Num.25:1-3 c. God intended to preserve Israel in order to bless the whole world--in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed (Gen.22:18). Other contemporary nations also practiced genocide but only in self-interest. d. The children in death were saved, while in life they would have been depraved and lost (Matt.19:14). It shows us the depravity of their idolatry, which was really demonic worship as it included child sacrifice (Deut.32:16,17; Lev.18:21). e. God also set borders on Israel so that they could not expand beyond them in the practice of “genocide” to claim their inheritance. The border limits set them apart as a far “kinder nation” than the typical expansionist/raiding mentality of their neighbors. f. They also were to be kind to the strangers and remember their hardship in Egypt (Ex.23:9). g. (Deut.2:25) God placed his fear on the nations ahead of driving them out. They were forewarned and given the opportunity to leave if they chose to do so (Deut.20). Israel was driving out nations mightier than they by the help of God were not overwhelming them with superior numbers. (Deut.11:23) h. People who wished to voluntarily join with Israel were recognized—Rahab, Ruth, Uriah the Hittite,
We need to remember that we are no longer under that covenant of law by which the Hebrews were governed--but it was necessary for their preservation in a time when nations regularly practiced genocide without boundaries. If you are trying to draw contemporary comparisons then this question is really best addressed to a Jew who, unlike the Christian, believes the full OT moral code is still in effect.
, Lets say someone wanted to believe in a god How would he know the one "true" religion to choose.( Love to hear the twisted and spun answers on this question}.
We need to remember that we are no longer under that covenant of law by which the Hebrews were governed--but it was necessary for their preservation in a time when nations regularly practiced genocide without boundaries. If you are trying to draw contemporary comparisons then this question is really best addressed to a Jew who, unlike the Christian, believes the full OT moral code is still in effect.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
We need to remember that we are no longer under that covenant of law by which the Hebrews were governed--but it was necessary for their preservation in a time when nations regularly practiced genocide without boundaries. If you are trying to draw contemporary comparisons then this question is really best addressed to a Jew who, unlike the Christian, believes the full OT moral code is still in effect.
, Lets say someone wanted to believe in a god How would he know the one "true" religion to choose.( Love to hear the twisted and spun answers on this question}.
Simple enough, eschew all "religion" and deal with God yourself.
To do otherwise is to not deal with God, rather a group of people that put themselves in place of God.
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
JSTUART according to "true" believers their is only one true path to salvation, I need to know the correct one ,and proof it is correct. A mistake could land a person in hell don't you know.
JSTUART according to "true" believers their is only one true path to salvation, I need to know the correct one ,and proof it is correct. A mistake could land a person in hell don't you know.
Remember that bit about "group of people that put themselves in place of God".
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
The Bible shows scientific knowledge beyond what the writers knew themselves: Isa. 40: 22 It is he who sits above the "circle" of the earth,
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
I consider this a very fair question as long as it is understood to be answered within the context of those times. I would offer the following to consider:
a. Their moral pollution had reached its fullness and had become generational affecting even the small children. Gen. 15:16; Exodus 20:5 b. The pagan women would have led Israel’s children into idolatry. Deut.20:16,17; Num.25:1-3 c. God intended to preserve Israel in order to bless the whole world--in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed (Gen.22:18). Other contemporary nations also practiced genocide but only in self-interest. d. The children in death were saved, while in life they would have been depraved and lost (Matt.19:14). It shows us the depravity of their idolatry, which was really demonic worship as it included child sacrifice (Deut.32:16,17; Lev.18:21). e. God also set borders on Israel so that they could not expand beyond them in the practice of “genocide” to claim their inheritance. The border limits set them apart as a far “kinder nation” than the typical expansionist/raiding mentality of their neighbors. f. They also were to be kind to the strangers and remember their hardship in Egypt (Ex.23:9). g. (Deut.2:25) God placed his fear on the nations ahead of driving them out. They were forewarned and given the opportunity to leave if they chose to do so (Deut.20). Israel was driving out nations mightier than they by the help of God were not overwhelming them with superior numbers. (Deut.11:23) h. People who wished to voluntarily join with Israel were recognized—Rahab, Ruth, Uriah the Hittite,
Sick.
Sick and a lame excuse.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan
35 pages and still no proof. only I believe therefore it must be true. The Norse believed in Odin therefore he must be true also. Using your "logic" of course.
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
35 pages and still no proof. only I believe therefore it must be true. The Norse believed in Odin therefore he must be true also. Using your "logic" of course.
He wants there to be no proof in order to exclude people with no faith, like you.
You think we want to spend eternity with folks like you. Hell, it wouldnt be Heaven.
To be fair, you can't really prove that either. Best you can do is to say you see no compelling evidence of a God. This question has been floating around out there forever, and is unlikely to be satisfactorily concluded in this thread, I think...
, Lets say someone wanted to believe in a god How would he know the one "true" religion to choose.( Love to hear the twisted and spun answers on this question}.
Simple enough, eschew all "religion" and deal with God yourself.
To do otherwise is to not deal with God, rather a group of people that put themselves in place of God.
Well said.
First the new world church tells you to trust God/Jesus he will lead you and keep you on the right path. Have faith brother, ect, ect. Then they offer up the Catholic/Nicea/Vatican version of .........well we say only these books are truly about God. And never mind that most Bibles are take offs of the King James Version which was re translated from the 1611 King James which has many of the Lost Books/apocrypha books in it. Is that confusing, misleading and down out right deceiving? You bet it is and it's done for a reason.
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
The Bible shows scientific knowledge beyond what the writers knew themselves: Isa. 40: 22 It is he who sits above the "circle" of the earth,
, Lets say someone wanted to believe in a god How would he know the one "true" religion to choose.( Love to hear the twisted and spun answers on this question}.
Simple enough, eschew all "religion" and deal with God yourself.
To do otherwise is to not deal with God, rather a group of people that put themselves in place of God.
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
rimfire:
The text, in context, in Isaiah 40:22-23….is as follows:
“…21Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the foundation of the earth? 22He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. 23He brings the princes to nothing and makes the judges of the earth meaningless.…”
So, grasshopper, let me help you with this. The point is the majesty of God and GOD looking ….ready for it? ….. DOWN on the dwellers of the earth. If one is in the skies, like an astronaut, the earth appears as a circle.
Simple, but I suspect you are not seeking an understanding.
No problem, no contradiction…. only an eagerness to be quick to conclude and a lack of understanding on your part. I doubt you ever even read the verse in context and tried to understand it. If you did and failed to see the viewpoint…well, you can guess…..
Keep to your studies grasshopper…… oh, and take your blinders off.
add: Did you actually think this verse teaches that the earth is flat …...or are you just kidding?
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
The Bible shows scientific knowledge beyond what the writers knew themselves: Isa. 40: 22 It is he who sits above the "circle" of the earth,
Circles are flat.
Lol I was waiting for this comeback ...
Now if the Bible is written totally from an earth based observatory perspective where did the idea of circle come from? How would they know it to be circular? Would it not be easier understood from an earth based perspective as square? Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Whether a circle or a sphere, the writing cannot be based on a purely human perspective--there is evidence of divine guidance and a description from a divine vantage point above the earth. How did the writer know the earth would appear as a circle from this high vantage point?
Next let's notice what all is being described in this verse i.e. the full context?
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
The earth is described as a circle with the heavens like the dome-like canopy of a tent over them. Now we are clearly creating a 3 dimensional perspective of the scene being described. So with a 3-dimensional image where a dome-like canopy encompasses the circle of the earth the imagery is more spherical than pancake. From the vantage point of where God sits above the circle of the earth--the combined look of the heavens and earth is both spherical as a globe and/or circular as a disc.The vantage point is from far away because humanity is comparatively illustrated as grasshoppers--an idiom for being minuscule. Does the earth look circular from a distance--yes. Does it also appear spherical when you consider the heavens as a tented vault over it--yes. Could it be that both perspectives are being given from a human author under deivine guidance describing something he never saw from above the earth--yes very obviously.
Common definition of Hebrew Chuwg: circle, compass,
Can Chuwg also mean sphere?
Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: H2329: "חוּג m. a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky, Pro.8:27; Job 22:14; of the world, Isa.40:22."
Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the ancient Latin Vulgate. When Jerome translated the Hebrew into Latin he used the word globe. This was long before science would have told him to use globe--but he did on the basis of the Hebrew definition and the 3D context being described.
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
Henry Morris Study Bible,
Quote: “40:22 circle of the earth. Hebrew khug, translated “compassed” in Job 26:10 and “compass” in Proverbs 8:27. All three, in context, clearly refer to the spherical shape of the earth. 40:22 stretcheth out the heavens. This phrase is possibly a reference to the expanding universe, as envisioned by modern astronomers. There are numerous references in Scripture to the “stretching-out” or “spreading-out” of the heavens (space) when God created the universe. See, for example, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12. Alternatively, the “heavens” referred to here may refer simply to the atmospheric heavens, spread out like a curtain or “tent to dwell in” around a circle of the earth. This atmospheric “tent”, refracting and spreading light over the hemisphere, is sharply distinct from the darkness outside.”
How was the Bible understood by some scholars in the ancient church?
Here is 4th century Bishop Ambrose giving a reading from Isaiah 40:22.
Quote: "And further on: 'Who sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts, who stretcheth out the heavens as an arch?' Who, then, ventures to put his knowledge in the same plane with that of God?” (St.Ambrose, "Hexameron" The Fathers Of The Church series translated by John J. Savage, p.231).
Enduring Word commentary: Isaiah uses an interesting phrase when he describes God as the one who sits above the circle of the earth. How could Isaiah possibly know that the earth’s shape was a circle? He probably didn’t know; but the LORD who spoke through Isaiah did know!
iv. Every once in a while, unlearned critics talk as if Bible believing people are members of the “Flat Earth Society” – people so out of touch with real science that they still insist the earth is flat. In response, we should be reminded that Augustine, perhaps the greatest of the church fathers, who lived about a thousand years before Columbus, professed that the earth was round, not flat. As well, in the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, the most profound and prolific of medieval theologians, observed that the spherical shape of the earth could be empirically demonstrated. All they did was agree with Isaiah: It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.
Hmm ... looks like some Christians were clued into the concept of a spherical earth before science could conclusively prove it.
If the bible was truly "gods" word it wouldn't have evolved , 600 years ago the earth was flat today its round. A god would have known at the time the bible was written that it was round and not let the primitives (bible writers) believe it was flat.
The Bible shows scientific knowledge beyond what the writers knew themselves: Isa. 40: 22 It is he who sits above the "circle" of the earth,
Circles are flat.
Sphere's aren't, but they look flat when viewed from above.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
I consider this a very fair question as long as it is understood to be answered within the context of those times. I would offer the following to consider:
a. Their moral pollution had reached its fullness and had become generational affecting even the small children. Gen. 15:16; Exodus 20:5 b. The pagan women would have led Israel’s children into idolatry. Deut.20:16,17; Num.25:1-3 c. God intended to preserve Israel in order to bless the whole world--in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed (Gen.22:18). Other contemporary nations also practiced genocide but only in self-interest. d. The children in death were saved, while in life they would have been depraved and lost (Matt.19:14). It shows us the depravity of their idolatry, which was really demonic worship as it included child sacrifice (Deut.32:16,17; Lev.18:21). e. God also set borders on Israel so that they could not expand beyond them in the practice of “genocide” to claim their inheritance. The border limits set them apart as a far “kinder nation” than the typical expansionist/raiding mentality of their neighbors. f. They also were to be kind to the strangers and remember their hardship in Egypt (Ex.23:9). g. (Deut.2:25) God placed his fear on the nations ahead of driving them out. They were forewarned and given the opportunity to leave if they chose to do so (Deut.20). Israel was driving out nations mightier than they by the help of God were not overwhelming them with superior numbers. (Deut.11:23) h. People who wished to voluntarily join with Israel were recognized—Rahab, Ruth, Uriah the Hittite,
Sick.
Sick and a lame excuse.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan
Well I don't think God is concerned about your judgment of Him based on your own standards, but one day He will judge you by His standards. Do we all get to judge God based on our personal varying standards--how would we arrive at a consensus of judgment? In the meantime with one broad statement you have characterized the heart of Judaism as sick.This is still their only Bible. Do you mean to call Judaism sick?
(“It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment”) That says nothing about rotating on its axis or orbiting the sun. You probably believe the earth was created in 6 days also. Don't come back with "gods" 6 days are longer than mans 6 days. That reply only came up when people realized the earth was much older than the bible imply s and questioned it.
(“It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment”) That says nothing about rotating on its axis or orbiting the sun. You probably believe the earth was created in 6 days also. Don't come back with "gods" 6 days are longer than mans 6 days. That reply only came up when people realized the earth was much older than the bible imply s and questioned it.
Big deal, I have a usually normal sister that absolutely believes the world is six thousand years old, and where did she get this crap, from some religious twits bent on control.
(“It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment”) That says nothing about rotating on its axis or orbiting the sun. You probably believe the earth was created in 6 days also. Don't come back with "gods" 6 days are longer than mans 6 days. That reply only came up when people realized the earth was much older than the bible imply s and questioned it.
I think we all know that it says what it says -- but how did the author know it was being turned at all like Potter's wheel? Are there other ancient books where this knowledge was recorded? If not this sets the Bible apart again.
xxclaro you don't have to prove something doesn't exist,you have to prove it does.
The scientific evidence requires a Creator--a beginning, therefore the onus would fall on the non-existence of God camp to scientifically explain how the cosmos started without a Designer.
--JSTUART Would you like to buy my ocean front property in Arizona? 100 bucks and its yours sight unseen of course since you don't have to prove something doesn't exist. Pulling your leg of course. It's worth way more than that. Proving something doesn't exist has never been the standard,proving it does is.
--JSTUART Would you like to buy my ocean front property in Arizona? 100 bucks and its yours sight unseen of course since you don't have to prove something doesn't exist. Pulling your leg of course. It's worth way more than that. Proving something doesn't exist has never been the standard,proving it does is.
Clement was a 2nd century church father. The following is taken from his writing called The Instructor, which I’m citing from the very last page of Book III entitled To The Paedagous: Quote: “And when the seasons, in their circling course, Winter and summer, spring and autumn, each Should come, according to well-ordered plan; Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn;-- Grant to me life, and be that life well spent, Thy grace enjoying; let me act and speak In all things as Thy Holy Scriptures teach”
(Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol.1).
Clement says the he learned from the scriptures about the sphere of the earth.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
I consider this a very fair question as long as it is understood to be answered within the context of those times. I would offer the following to consider:
a. Their moral pollution had reached its fullness and had become generational affecting even the small children. Gen. 15:16; Exodus 20:5 b. The pagan women would have led Israel’s children into idolatry. Deut.20:16,17; Num.25:1-3 c. God intended to preserve Israel in order to bless the whole world--in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed (Gen.22:18). Other contemporary nations also practiced genocide but only in self-interest. d. The children in death were saved, while in life they would have been depraved and lost (Matt.19:14). It shows us the depravity of their idolatry, which was really demonic worship as it included child sacrifice (Deut.32:16,17; Lev.18:21). e. God also set borders on Israel so that they could not expand beyond them in the practice of “genocide” to claim their inheritance. The border limits set them apart as a far “kinder nation” than the typical expansionist/raiding mentality of their neighbors. f. They also were to be kind to the strangers and remember their hardship in Egypt (Ex.23:9). g. (Deut.2:25) God placed his fear on the nations ahead of driving them out. They were forewarned and given the opportunity to leave if they chose to do so (Deut.20). Israel was driving out nations mightier than they by the help of God were not overwhelming them with superior numbers. (Deut.11:23) h. People who wished to voluntarily join with Israel were recognized—Rahab, Ruth, Uriah the Hittite,
Sick.
Sick and a lame excuse.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan
Well I don't think God is concerned about your judgment of Him based on your own standards, but one day He will judge you by His standards. Do we all get to judge God based on our personal varying standards--how would we arrive at a consensus of judgment? In the meantime with one broad statement you have characterized the heart of Judaism as sick.This is still their only Bible. Do you mean to call Judaism sick?
I do not want to judge anyone...BUT killing babies and children for any reason is SICK. That includes abortion. Making excuses for killing kids is LAME in the highest degree.
“The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can't all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It's a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they're called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation”. Carl Sagan's Contact
I do not want to judge anyone...BUT killing babies and children for any reason is SICK. That includes abortion. Making excuses for killing kids is LAME in the highest degree
I understand ... and under the new covenant this is wrong ... I will only present what the Bible says and will not try to sanitize it in any way, nor do I make excuses or apologies for it. One thing is clear from ancient history is that the surrounding nations were far more bestial in their conduct than what God required of Israel for a specific time and in specific circumstances. God asked His people to separate from the heathen ways. The heathen nations were given opportunity to repent, opportunity to leave Canaan, and opportunity for peace, and they chose to fight and die. Israel only had the right to take life in this way at God's specific order. In the end God used these events to bring about change to the whole world. It is easy to make sweeping judgments about primitive times, but if you lived in those times and in those conditions you would view things much differently.
Times have changed --through the influence of the teachings of Christ barbarism has diminished. Through the influence of the teachings of Christ the medieval "Christian" justification of religious persecution was ended. Through the influence of the teachings of Christ full liberty of conscience, a concept previously unheard of, was introduced to some of the American colonies such as Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, and then accepted by our nation and then by large portions of the world. Where before their might be a degree of toleration for religious dissent, the American experience, through the influence of the teachings and example of Christ corrected a lot of religious wrongs. You can read the writings of Roger Williams to understand the arguments being made for religious freedom on the basis of the NT teachings. If we lose our sense that liberties are a God given right, then they will become government privileges. We can be sure that a government who sees no need to answer to God for anything, will one decide that we no longer need all our rights and we certainly do not need the right to dissent.
The question really is whether God has a right to judge and take human life. He does--sometimes by deliberate act and sometimes by allowing nature to take it's course. The teachings of Christ demonstrated how we are to live as humans with one another under a new covenant of grace. His teachings separate between what God alone has a right to do, what He authorized for a time and purpose in the past, and what is proper conduct for humanity under current covenant of grace.
Again I point out that condemnation of God for His conduct in the OT assumes a few things: 1. That God does not have a right to take human life--He only has a right to create life 2. That we can judge God's dealings in the past, in a completely different time, by our standards of what we believe to be right in the present 3. That we can overlook the fact that God used these events to help change the whole world for the better 4. That we overlook the fact that the other heathen nations of the time were acting largely in their self-interest while God was working with Israel to ultimately benefit the whole world 5. That we recognize the logical inconsistency of saying all religions are equally valid and then ostracize the conduct of God in the OT 6. That we recognize that condemnation of the conduct of God in the OT is really a strike at Judaism, and not a strike against Christianity, because Judaism still considers the OT their only scriptures. 7. That God is still the same moral being in both the Old and New Testaments but that His laws regarding man's conduct have changed--a change that was prophesied and anticipated in the OT. 8. That any moral judgment being made requires an absolute moral standard by which to make the judgment. If we deny the existence of God or any moral absolutes, on the basis of what standard do we judge something to be immoral in any time or place?
Honest inquiry and evaluation to seek and find truth is supported by scripture--"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." Skepticism which is based on denying any absolute truth is condemned as folly.
xxclaro you don't have to prove something doesn't exist,you have to prove it does.
If you are going to make an absolute statement like "God does not exist" then I'd say you do need some good reasons why it's not possible for a god to exist. I might not believe in ghosts or UFOs or bigfoot or hollow earth dwelling lizard people, but if I'm honest then the best I can say is that I find it extremely unlikely and don't see any compelling evidence. However, if I get beamed up to come face to face with bigfoot, I'm open to changing my mind...
If god existed he would have shown himself in the beginning of mans existence, not 100's of thousands of years later. His word would also be the same worldwide not christianity here Buddhism there odin,zeus etc. etc. a century or 2 ago I to probably would have believed in a god but with the advances in science their conclusions make much more sense. There are people out there who still believe in noah's ark and a flood that covered the world.
Consider this: If we say God was immoral for using annihilation measures in war after people refused to leave, surrender, or make an agreement ... are we also morally condemning the Allied powers for their bombings of Berlin and Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the War when the Axis powers refused to surrender?
In Berlin, the bombings went to night time because the day time bombings were too costly, but in doing so the military could not be solely targeted, but rather area bombing at night was employed which also hit population centers and killed indiscriminately.
With regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the plan was simply to cause so much collateral damage and death to force and end to the war. Again women and children were killed indiscriminately.
I am not condoning this action, and the Allies were reluctant to employ it, and today it remains morally grey for some for warfare; but the Allies believed they had no other way to succinctly bring the war to an end. Their intent for the indiscriminate bombing which included all ages of civilians was to stop the war at whatever cost and thus alleviate the overall continuing casualties.
I simply say this to show that not so long ago the Allies of the world saw this as the only way to stop the evil spread of the Axis powers.
Truman's words, "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware."
It sounds like Truman was planning to execute far more destruction than the "bloodthirsty God of the OT."
He did, that's a lot of BULL. Unless you are thinking of that ridiculous story of adam and eve. even less credible than the ark fairy tail. You really aren't saying the people in China knew of your god but chose buddah instead are you.
If god existed he would have shown himself in the beginning of mans existence, not 100's of thousands of years later. His word would also be the same worldwide not christianity here Buddhism there odin,zeus etc. etc. a century or 2 ago I to probably would have believed in a god but with the advances in science their conclusions make much more sense. There are people out there who still believe in noah's ark and a flood that covered the world.
Consider this: If we say God was immoral for using annihilation measures in war after people refused to leave, surrender, or make an agreement ... are we also morally condemning the Allied powers for their bombings of Berlin and Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the War when the Axis powers refused to surrender?
In Berlin, the bombings went to night time because the day time bombings were too costly, but in doing so the military could not be solely targeted, but rather area bombing at night was employed which also hit population centers and killed indiscriminately.
With regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the plan was simply to cause so much collateral damage and death to force and end to the war. Again women and children were killed indiscriminately.
I am not condoning this action, and the Allies were reluctant to employ it, and today it remains morally grey for some for warfare; but the Allies believed they had no other way to succinctly bring the war to an end. Their intent for the indiscriminate bombing which included all ages of civilians was to stop the war at whatever cost and thus alleviate the overall continuing casualties.
I simply say this to show that not so long ago the Allies of the word saw this as the only way to stop the evil spread of the Axis powers.
Truman's words, "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware
Indiscriminate annihilation is what humans do. I would expect a God that created a universe from nothing would have other options.
So we can judge God by our manmade moral standards and excuse men by the same standards or different standards ... no wait God employed Israel to carry out those plans ... hmm ... did He also use the Allies ... Oh no, ... looks like we don't get a trite solution here ...
Indiscriminate annihilation is what humans do. I would expect a God that created a universe from nothing would have other options.
This is another example of skeptics eventually contradicting their own lines of reasoning--first of all you can't charge God with anything unless you believe that He exists, and Israel did what He commanded, and that it was accurately recorded in the OT. So on one hand its said He doesn't exist, then we charge Him with being immoral.
We say the universe wasn't created by God, then He had other options as the Creator. They blame God for trying to "fix everything according to His will" but then we blame Him if He works through mankind and doesn't employ enough miracles--but then we deny that miracles exist...and so it goes ...
If god existed he would have shown himself in the beginning of mans existence, not 100's of thousands of years later. His word would also be the same worldwide not christianity here Buddhism there odin,zeus etc. etc. a century or 2 ago I to probably would have believed in a god but with the advances in science their conclusions make much more sense. There are people out there who still believe in noah's ark and a flood that covered the world.
You are assuming that a God would show himself in obvious ways, which is not necessarily the case. Maybe we are just a lab experiment that is being allowed to run its course with minimal or no interference. Likewise for his word, no reason that a God would necessarily do such a thing. I think the problem for a lot of people when thinking about God is thinking in too limited of terms, assuming that it would basically be a human being with superpowers.
Indiscriminate annihilation is what humans do. I would expect a God that created a universe from nothing would have other options.
This is another example of skeptics eventually contradicting their own lines of reasoning--first of all you can't charge God with anything unless you believe that He exists, and Israel did what He commanded, and that it was accurately recorded in the OT. So on one hand its said He doesn't exist, then we charge Him with being immoral.
We say the universe wasn't created by God, then He had other options as the Creator. They blame God for trying to "fix everything according to His will" but then we blame Him if He works through mankind and doesn't employ enough miracles--but then we deny that miracles exist...and so it goes ...
I don't read it like that at all. I think he's simply saying that a God as wise and powerful as he would have to be to create all that is, would have had far better options than simply annihilating an entire people. He's not charging God with anything, he's saying God didn't do, in fact couldn't have done it since he doesn't exist, and therefore it was done by man using "God's will" and an excuse.
Even easier. By definition God is not constrained by anything. Least of all someone's opinion of how he should act. We're interested in what our relationship with God actually is, not what we think it should be.
Aalso consider the relationshp between free will and proof of God's existence. If we had proof of God to an ontological certainty we would ethically do what He said. We would be reduced to God's little robots, not made in His image and likeness.
Indiscriminate annihilation is what humans do. I would expect a God that created a universe from nothing would have other options.
Any annihilation ordained by God is far from indiscriminate. Throughout history there have been groups who just needed to totally die. It's that free-will thing, that sometimes just gets too free, I believe.
He put us here and He can take us out. I don't see what's so hard to believe about that, but for wretched pieces of failed humanity believing they might have some worth, like lieberals. Ha!
Even easier. By definition God is not constrained by anything. Least of all someone's opinion of how he should act. We're interested in what our relationship with God actually is, not what we think it should be.
God is restrained in one thing: He is not man that He should lie or do anything wrong. The Lord is Righteous in all His ways and faithful in all He does.
You would be taking the Bible as a history book (some seem to want to take it as a science book). It is not. It is a book about our relationship with God, written to be understood by yhe people at the time it was written.
Even easier. By definition God is not constrained by anything. Least of all someone's opinion of how he should act. We're interested in what our relationship with God actually is, not what we think it should be.
God is restrained in one thing: He is not man that He should lie or do anything wrong. The Lord is Righteous in all His ways and faithful in all He does.
Definitional issues again. God is not constrained in anything. By his nature what He says and does is defined as good.
I can't argue with the weak of mind. The bible was written by Satan. Prove me wrong. Also a fairy tail is not history, so I guess I'm not denying history only a fairy tail.
I can't argue with the weak of mind. The bible was written by Satan. Prove me wrong. Also a fairy tail is not history, so I guess I'm not denying history only a fairy tail.
It's to get people to obey and kill each other over which religion is correct. He also wrote the koran and the other religious books.PS virtues existed long before the bible.
Indiscriminate annihilation is what humans do. I would expect a God that created a universe from nothing would have other options.
This is another example of skeptics eventually contradicting their own lines of reasoning--first of all you can't charge God with anything unless you believe that He exists, and Israel did what He commanded, and that it was accurately recorded in the OT. So on one hand its said He doesn't exist, then we charge Him with being immoral.
We say the universe wasn't created by God, then He had other options as the Creator. They blame God for trying to "fix everything according to His will" but then we blame Him if He works through mankind and doesn't employ enough miracles--but then we deny that miracles exist...and so it goes ...
I don't read it like that at all. I think he's simply saying that a God as wise and powerful as he would have to be to create all that is, would have had far better options than simply annihilating an entire people. He's not charging God with anything, he's saying God didn't do, in fact couldn't have done it since he doesn't exist, and therefore it was done by man using "God's will" and an excuse.
I'm simply pointing out that we have been all over on this thread following contradictory lines of reasoning. As to the reasons for what God shared with us in His Word--they were shared here. The result is that God extended grace and grace was spurned--then he took measured methods to remove them. The Creator has the right to also terminate life as He sees fit. Again as pointed out this is very much like what happened in WWII. If God was sovereign in the OT, He was also still sovereign during WWII. Its the same as saying God could have found a way to miraculously intervene and end WWII by convincing the Japanese to surrender. But God has created humans with choices and consequences for the choices they make. That is an inescapable reality of life.
What does God need? Who does God love? Those He created to be His children in his likeness. What does He want? Money, no. Gold, no. Love, yes. From who? His.
He doesnt want you to make Him rich or strong or with warehouses of food or land with cattle, Rimfire. He doesnt want you to kill anyone for Him nor does He want you to wound yourself for Him.
What He wants from you is something for you, everlasting life.
You do realize that if I don't believe in a god I also don't believe in a satan. I'm pulling your chain to get a rise out of you,it worked Those who thought it through didn't respond.
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Sloppy reporting at best. As written, it is an undeniably contradictory account of an event that was most probably an epileptic seizure. In both instances, being open to interpretation and needing explanation, the interpretation made by those who already have a conclusion, already believe, is skewed in favour of faith rather than reason or probability.
Is that so? What is this thing called 'God?' Does it have an appearance? A body? Is it invisible? Magical? A Cosmic Magician? Who has it right, the Hindus in the form of Brahman, the Muslims?
What are we talking about when the word 'God' is being used?
Even easier. By definition God is not constrained by anything. Least of all someone's opinion of how he should act. We're interested in what our relationship with God actually is, not what we think it should be.
God is restrained in one thing: He is not man that He should lie or do anything wrong. The Lord is Righteous in all His ways and faithful in all He does.
I no longer respond nor even read posts by Starman. Rimfire and DBT just joined that club.
Simple trolls..... probably young ones.
The contradictions are there. The atrocities are there. The problems with the bible, and other holy books, Qur'an, Gita, etc, are real problems. Which includes the contradictions between holy books, with each set of believers disagreeing on the nature of God and theology in general.
The second death has never meant annihilation just like the first death never meant annihilation. The lake of fire is the second death and the wicked are cast into it where the beast and the false prophet ARE ... along with them the torment is forever.
many christians remain divided on that, not all read scripture as meaning ordinary sinners will be tormented for ever in the Lake. but all so typical of of so many christians, you think your interpretation is superior and trumps others.
the 2nd death is very specific to human sinners, whereas the devil , false profit and beast face a very different fate not described as death.
Rev.20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever".
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
2Thess. 1: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Yes, an everlasting destruction , not torment....God destroys the wicked sinner[ once and for all] in a final act of annihilation. otherwise known as = 2nd death. ....a final irreversible death sentence/termination/destruction one cannot be redeemed from.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Destroyed equals an everlasting destruction of torment and separation from God.
How do you equate death (being destoyed-turned to spent ash) as a form of etenal 'burning' torment? Do you know the difference between executing someone and specific intentional eternal torture?
"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. " Not a root or a branch will be left to them."
Wow imagine that ...God says there will be nothing remaining of the transgressor.
how does one torture and torment forever what has been totally destroyed and amounts to nothing?
If one has been turned to spent ash of no worth or value, then what actually remains that can continue to burn for eternity? its easy to see that there is an actual end to the burning/consumption process for sinners.
However, nowhere does it say the devil , false profit and Beast will be turned to ASH, because their fate ( Rev20:10) is described as different and very specific (ie; tormented forever).
"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. " Not a root or a branch will be left to them."
Wow imagine that ...God says there will be nothing remaining of the transgressor.
how does one torture and torment what amounts to nothing.. forever?
"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. " Not a root or a branch will be left to them."
Wow imagine that ...God says there will be nothing remaining of the transgressor.
how does one torture and torment what amounts to nothing.. forever?
Not much forgiveness there...
might not be all that much about forgiveness? i don't know.
if, i say if, we're in the fifth great period of time, the other four already past...
AFAIC for myself id just as soon you go to hell. Im still rooting for you to see the light and be saved because of Him. He doesnt want the devil to win and get you and subject you to the misery all of us deserve.
The docs may say youre gonna die, but its your choice. He says you can live forever and never truly die.
Whats it cost you to ask Christ to come into your heart and make you a believer? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You dont have to give up smoking, drinking or cussin and you prolly already gave up the good stuff.
All you then gotta do is ask Him to forgive your sorry sinning hide and mean you are sorry for having done it your way as us believers have done.
You take that step and what have you lost- nothing.
AFAIC for myself id just as soon you go to hell. Im still rooting for you to see the light and be saved because of Him. He doesnt want the devil to win and get you and subject you to the misery all of us deserve.
The docs may say youre gonna die, but its your choice. He says you can live forever and never truly die.
Whats it cost you to ask Christ to come into your heart and make you a believer? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You dont have to give up smoking, drinking or cussin and you prolly already gave up the good stuff.
All you then gotta do is ask Him to forgive your sorry sinning hide and mean you are sorry for having done it your way.
Good fortune and God bless as your needs may be.
jag, i can sense that you truly believe that the greek & egyptian ideology did not dilute or change the hebrew theology.
others disagree. but the many who walk among us buy into the greek & egyptian dilution. the age of the intellect, the ego, and reasoning.
and perhaps they are correct. possibly overall it would be better for the rank & file if it turned out they are correct.
in the final summation, those who helped gain success are rewarded, those who didn't help such achievement are punished?
[ You might want to give Lucifer more credit than you do. He didn't get the position he had while in Heaven by being stupid. And lest you think he was tossed out and dumbed down, the Bible accounts of his many times walking right in without an invite and talking to God.
Satan after being cast out, still has certain limited access to heavenly realms, he wasn't totally exiled. however I don't know of Satan just strolling in whenever he wanted unrestricted, but he did come when summoned by GOD on occasion. [as in Job 1]
God also set the strict parameters of what Satan could apply to Job, and Satan fully obeyed-adhered to such conditions-restrictions set by God.
Imagine that ..Satan doing exactly what God asked of him...do you know of any christian that can fully obey God to the letter....???
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Not much forgiveness there...
Just remember, its not the devil , but the christian God that has dominion and controls and sets the fiery conditions in hell that they fear so much.
He doesnt want the devil to win and get you and subject you to the misery all of us deserve.
That's a bad attitude. It is not for you to judge what misery you deserve. It is true that we cannot be saved by our own merit and we are charged with doing the best we can to follow God's laws. We are bound to fail and God knows this and is of infinite mercy. We are his children after all. Effort counts, bigly! End of sermon. I generally hate sermons.
TF49 sees himself as a victim [he made that very clear earlier on] , he imagines that people are 'stomping' on his free-will ability to believe what he wants.
yet nobody has asked him nor forced him, to do anything he doesn't want to do.
yet at the same time he will devalue another christians approach to their personal faith. telling them; "what you believe doesnt matter"
he also cheapens the discussion of GOD and spiritual matters to he deemed a a mere .'contest' or competition, ...but get this -- he then calls others childish and immature.
but he tells folks and wants folks to believe he holds the "truth' ...and that he is here to "help" guide people to God...
He doesnt want the devil to win and get you and subject you to the misery all of us deserve.
That's a bad attitude. It is not for you to judge what misery you deserve. It is true that we cannot be saved by our own merit and we are charged with doing the best we can to follow God's laws. We are bound to fail and God knows this and is of infinite mercy. We are his children after all. Effort counts, bigly! End of sermon. I generally hate sermons.
He doesnt want the devil to win and get you and subject you to the misery all of us deserve.
That's a bad attitude. It is not for you to judge what misery you deserve. It is true that we cannot be saved by our own merit and we are charged with doing the best we can to follow God's laws. We are bound to fail and God knows this and is of infinite mercy. We are his children after all. Effort counts, bigly! End of sermon. I generally hate sermons.
i didnt. Dont shoot the messenger.
shooting feral dogs, along georgia dirt type backroads help to save the fawn populations.
beyond that, the messenger has been shot dead more than once already.
it seems there's tons of faulty lights shining into the dark, poorly.
some lights have beams that illuminate locally, others afar.
all in a mass means that something gets illuminated.
[ You might want to give Lucifer more credit than you do. He didn't get the position he had while in Heaven by being stupid. And lest you think he was tossed out and dumbed down, the Bible accounts of his many times walking right in without an invite and talking to God.
Satan after being cast out, still has certain limited access to heavenly realms, he wasn't totally exiled. however I don't know of Satan just strolling in whenever he wanted unrestricted, but he did come when summoned by GOD on occasion. [as in Job 1]
God also set the strict parameters of what Satan could apply to Job, and Satan fully obeyed-adhered to such conditions-restrictions set by God.
Imagine that ..Satan doing exactly what God asked of him...do you know of any christian that can fully obey God to the letter....???
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Not much forgiveness there...
Just remember, its not the devil , but the christian God that has dominion and controls and sets the fiery conditions in hell that they fear so much.
Yes...the bible tells us that God created evil. And the book of Job has Satan and God having a friendly wager, like good buddies. Satan only acting according to the directions of God.
Even easier. By definition God is not constrained by anything. Least of all someone's opinion of how he should act. We're interested in what our relationship with God actually is, not what we think it should be.
God is restrained in one thing: He is not man that He should lie or do anything wrong. The Lord is Righteous in all His ways and faithful in all He does.
[ You might want to give Lucifer more credit than you do. He didn't get the position he had while in Heaven by being stupid. And lest you think he was tossed out and dumbed down, the Bible accounts of his many times walking right in without an invite and talking to God.
Satan after being cast out, still has certain limited access to heavenly realms, he wasn't totally exiled. however I don't know of Satan just strolling in whenever he wanted unrestricted, but he did come when summoned by GOD on occasion. [as in Job 1]
God also set the strict parameters of what Satan could apply to Job, and Satan fully obeyed-adhered to such conditions-restrictions set by God.
Imagine that ..Satan doing exactly what God asked of him...do you know of any christian that can fully obey God to the letter....???
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Not much forgiveness there...
Just remember, its not the devil , but the christian God that has dominion and controls and sets the fiery conditions in hell that they fear so much.
Yes...the bible tells us that God created evil. And the book of Job has Satan and God having a friendly wager, like good buddies. Satan only acting according to the directions of God.
god, in his munificence would have done more for us down here on the earth.
but he was limited in resources at the time.
he had other responsibilities.
he wanted the best for us.
but he could only do so much.
ya know?
and now it's up to us to work it out.
it's going good in some ways, in others not so much.
at the end of the era, he'll give us some credit, and he'll take some blame??
Its amazing how deep Lucifer can get in peoples heads. They get so addicted to his crap they dont want to see the light.
The deep state cimmies have evidently learned his methods also. It doesnt matter if you point out how destructive muzxy immigration and open borders are for our nation. its impossible to get through to brainwashed folks like Diddler. They stick to the commie line like the lost do to Satan.
Its like some are afraid and too chicken to as Jesus Christ into their heart to change them. They seem afraid if He did it would prove how wrong they have been and they would be ashamed to admit it to Him.
I was at that point many years ago in my life when with asthma and smoking i got to the point i couldnt breath. I almost followed satan and said to hell with it i will just die smoking. What pissed me off was realizing all those rich pricks who inherited their grandads millions from tobacco stocks were living it up on the French Rivera on my life and dime.
F those bastids. I got the patch and the gum. I said, Satan, get the behind me. PTL, He saved me. Because of Him im not near the ass i used to be.
I'll be praying for you, Rimfire, for Him and against Satan.
Indiscriminate annihilation is what humans do. I would expect a God that created a universe from nothing would have other options.
This is another example of skeptics eventually contradicting their own lines of reasoning--first of all you can't charge God with anything unless you believe that He exists, and Israel did what He commanded, and that it was accurately recorded in the OT. So on one hand its said He doesn't exist, then we charge Him with being immoral.
We say the universe wasn't created by God, then He had other options as the Creator. They blame God for trying to "fix everything according to His will" but then we blame Him if He works through mankind and doesn't employ enough miracles--but then we deny that miracles exist...and so it goes ...
I don't read it like that at all. I think he's simply saying that a God as wise and powerful as he would have to be to create all that is, would have had far better options than simply annihilating an entire people. He's not charging God with anything, he's saying God didn't do, in fact couldn't have done it since he doesn't exist, and therefore it was done by man using "God's will" and an excuse.
I'm simply pointing out that we have been all over on this thread following contradictory lines of reasoning. As to the reasons for what God shared with us in His Word--they were shared here. The result is that God extended grace and grace was spurned--then he took measured methods to remove them. The Creator has the right to also terminate life as He sees fit. Again as pointed out this is very much like what happened in WWII. If God was sovereign in the OT, He was also still sovereign during WWII. Its the same as saying God could have found a way to miraculously intervene and end WWII by convincing the Japanese to surrender. But God has created humans with choices and consequences for the choices they make. That is an inescapable reality of life.
Why complicate things with a god that created us with choices and consequences for those choices.
Take the god from this equation, and we still have humans with choices and consequences for those choices. The god you proposes adds nothing to the equation, and WWII is better explained without it.
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Sloppy reporting at best. As written, it is an undeniably contradictory account of an event that was most probably an epileptic seizure. In both instances, being open to interpretation and needing explanation, the interpretation made by those who already have a conclusion, already believe, is skewed in favour of faith rather than reason or probability.
Considering the Theist claim that the Bible was written by the all knowing creator of the universe, he sure is a lousy communicator.
[ You might want to give Lucifer more credit than you do. He didn't get the position he had while in Heaven by being stupid. And lest you think he was tossed out and dumbed down, the Bible accounts of his many times walking right in without an invite and talking to God.
Satan after being cast out, still has certain limited access to heavenly realms, he wasn't totally exiled. however I don't know of Satan just strolling in whenever he wanted unrestricted, but he did come when summoned by GOD on occasion. [as in Job 1]
God also set the strict parameters of what Satan could apply to Job, and Satan fully obeyed-adhered to such conditions-restrictions set by God.
Imagine that ..Satan doing exactly what God asked of him...do you know of any christian that can fully obey God to the letter....???
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Not much forgiveness there...
Just remember, its not the devil , but the christian God that has dominion and controls and sets the fiery conditions in hell that they fear so much.
Yes...the bible tells us that God created evil. And the book of Job has Satan and God having a friendly wager, like good buddies. Satan only acting according to the directions of God.
Within the biblical texts, how many people are killed by Satan, and how many are killed by, or at the direction of God?
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Sloppy reporting at best. As written, it is an undeniably contradictory account of an event that was most probably an epileptic seizure. In both instances, being open to interpretation and needing explanation, the interpretation made by those who already have a conclusion, already believe, is skewed in favour of faith rather than reason or probability.
Considering the Theist claim that the Bible was written by the all knowing creator of the universe, he sure is a lousy communicator.
Nope, you’re totally wrong.
You probably never wondered about what Jesus “hearing ears.”
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Sloppy reporting at best. As written, it is an undeniably contradictory account of an event that was most probably an epileptic seizure. In both instances, being open to interpretation and needing explanation, the interpretation made by those who already have a conclusion, already believe, is skewed in favour of faith rather than reason or probability.
Considering the Theist claim that the Bible was written by the all knowing creator of the universe, he sure is a lousy communicator.
[ You might want to give Lucifer more credit than you do. He didn't get the position he had while in Heaven by being stupid. And lest you think he was tossed out and dumbed down, the Bible accounts of his many times walking right in without an invite and talking to God.
Satan after being cast out, still has certain limited access to heavenly realms, he wasn't totally exiled. however I don't know of Satan just strolling in whenever he wanted unrestricted, but he did come when summoned by GOD on occasion. [as in Job 1]
God also set the strict parameters of what Satan could apply to Job, and Satan fully obeyed-adhered to such conditions-restrictions set by God.
Imagine that ..Satan doing exactly what God asked of him...do you know of any christian that can fully obey God to the letter....???
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Not much forgiveness there...
Just remember, its not the devil , but the christian God that has dominion and controls and sets the fiery conditions in hell that they fear so much.
Yes...the bible tells us that God created evil. And the book of Job has Satan and God having a friendly wager, like good buddies. Satan only acting according to the directions of God.
Within the biblical texts, how many people are killed by Satan, and how many are killed by, or at the direction of God?
Seems to me He needs to kill a whole lot more. I would.
Even easier. By definition God is not constrained by anything. Least of all someone's opinion of how he should act. We're interested in what our relationship with God actually is, not what we think it should be.
God is restrained in one thing: He is not man that He should lie or do anything wrong. The Lord is Righteous in all His ways and faithful in all He does.
How do you explain the atrocities in the OT?
What makes them atrocities?
Murder everyone who's not a female virgin. What do you call that if not an atrocity?
From Numbers:
And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian.
4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.
21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses;
22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.
24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.
25 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:
27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:
28 And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord.
30 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.
31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.
32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,
33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
34 And threescore and one thousand asses,
35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:
37 And the Lord'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.
38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the Lord'S tribute was threescore and twelve.
39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the Lord'S tribute was threescore and one.
40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the Lord'S tribute was thirty and two persons.
41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the Lord'S heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the Lord commanded Moses.
42 And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided from the men that warred,
43 (Now the half that pertained unto the congregation was three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep,
44 And thirty and six thousand beeves,
45 And thirty thousand asses and five hundred,
46 And sixteen thousand persons;)
47 Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord; as the Lord commanded Moses.
48 And the officers which were over thousands of the host, the captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, came near unto Moses:
49 And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us.
50 We have therefore brought an oblation for the Lord, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the Lord.
51 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels.
52 And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the Lord, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.
53 (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.)
54 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord.
[ You might want to give Lucifer more credit than you do. He didn't get the position he had while in Heaven by being stupid. And lest you think he was tossed out and dumbed down, the Bible accounts of his many times walking right in without an invite and talking to God.
Satan after being cast out, still has certain limited access to heavenly realms, he wasn't totally exiled. however I don't know of Satan just strolling in whenever he wanted unrestricted, but he did come when summoned by GOD on occasion. [as in Job 1]
God also set the strict parameters of what Satan could apply to Job, and Satan fully obeyed-adhered to such conditions-restrictions set by God.
Imagine that ..Satan doing exactly what God asked of him...do you know of any christian that can fully obey God to the letter....???
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Not much forgiveness there...
Just remember, its not the devil , but the christian God that has dominion and controls and sets the fiery conditions in hell that they fear so much.
Yes...the bible tells us that God created evil. And the book of Job has Satan and God having a friendly wager, like good buddies. Satan only acting according to the directions of God.
Within the biblical texts, how many people are killed by Satan, and how many are killed by, or at the direction of God?
Seems to me He needs to kill a whole lot more. I would.
well, yeah. but there it is.
the first rule was to kill all the heathen.
the second rule was to offer forgiveness to the ones that want it.
[ You might want to give Lucifer more credit than you do. He didn't get the position he had while in Heaven by being stupid. And lest you think he was tossed out and dumbed down, the Bible accounts of his many times walking right in without an invite and talking to God.
Satan after being cast out, still has certain limited access to heavenly realms, he wasn't totally exiled. however I don't know of Satan just strolling in whenever he wanted unrestricted, but he did come when summoned by GOD on occasion. [as in Job 1]
God also set the strict parameters of what Satan could apply to Job, and Satan fully obeyed-adhered to such conditions-restrictions set by God.
Imagine that ..Satan doing exactly what God asked of him...do you know of any christian that can fully obey God to the letter....???
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Not much forgiveness there...
Just remember, its not the devil , but the christian God that has dominion and controls and sets the fiery conditions in hell that they fear so much.
Yes...the bible tells us that God created evil. And the book of Job has Satan and God having a friendly wager, like good buddies. Satan only acting according to the directions of God.
Within the biblical texts, how many people are killed by Satan, and how many are killed by, or at the direction of God?
Seems to me He needs to kill a whole lot more. I would.
Clement was a 2nd century church father. The following is taken from his writing called The Instructor, which I’m citing from the very last page of Book III entitled To The Paedagous: Quote: “And when the seasons, in their circling course, Winter and summer, spring and autumn, each Should come, according to well-ordered plan; Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn;-- Grant to me life, and be that life well spent, Thy grace enjoying; let me act and speak In all things as Thy Holy Scriptures teach”
(Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol.1).
Clement says the he learned from the scriptures about the sphere of the earth.
Greeks know the earth was spherical at least as early as the 5th century BC if not 100 years before that.
Clement was a 2nd century church father. The following is taken from his writing called The Instructor, which I’m citing from the very last page of Book III entitled To The Paedagous: Quote: “And when the seasons, in their circling course, Winter and summer, spring and autumn, each Should come, according to well-ordered plan; Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn;-- Grant to me life, and be that life well spent, Thy grace enjoying; let me act and speak In all things as Thy Holy Scriptures teach”
(Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol.1).
Clement says the he learned from the scriptures about the sphere of the earth.
Greeks know the earth was spherical at least as early as the 5th century BC if not 100 years before that.
I didn't see you back up that assertion ... but at any rate it doesn't change the fact that Clement based his claim on scripture.
Clement was a 2nd century church father. The following is taken from his writing called The Instructor, which I’m citing from the very last page of Book III entitled To The Paedagous: Quote: “And when the seasons, in their circling course, Winter and summer, spring and autumn, each Should come, according to well-ordered plan; Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn;-- Grant to me life, and be that life well spent, Thy grace enjoying; let me act and speak In all things as Thy Holy Scriptures teach”
(Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol.1).
Clement says the he learned from the scriptures about the sphere of the earth.
Greeks know the earth was spherical at least as early as the 5th century BC if not 100 years before that.
I didn't see you back up that assertion ... but at any rate it doesn't change the fact that Clement based his claim on scripture.
And what non-circular reason do you have for anyone to care what's written in the scripture?
Until you can demonstrate that your so called god even exists, claims bases in scripture are irrelevant.
Clement was a 2nd century church father. The following is taken from his writing called The Instructor, which I’m citing from the very last page of Book III entitled To The Paedagous: Quote: “And when the seasons, in their circling course, Winter and summer, spring and autumn, each Should come, according to well-ordered plan; Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn;-- Grant to me life, and be that life well spent, Thy grace enjoying; let me act and speak In all things as Thy Holy Scriptures teach”
(Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol.1).
Clement says the he learned from the scriptures about the sphere of the earth.
Greeks know the earth was spherical at least as early as the 5th century BC if not 100 years before that.
Pythagoras speculated but it wasn't recognized as proven till the 2-3rd century. Isaiah recorded it as fact long before that.
NIce assertion. I see you provided no evidence to support it.
The assertion is fallacious. By definition going back to the philosophical musings of the ancient Greeks god as an unrestricted uncaused being had to always exist. Therefore an expression of the possibility of being before god is meaningless.
But on the other hand there you go. A philosophical proof of god.
Clement was a 2nd century church father. The following is taken from his writing called The Instructor, which I’m citing from the very last page of Book III entitled To The Paedagous: Quote: “And when the seasons, in their circling course, Winter and summer, spring and autumn, each Should come, according to well-ordered plan; Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn;-- Grant to me life, and be that life well spent, Thy grace enjoying; let me act and speak In all things as Thy Holy Scriptures teach”
(Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol.1).
Clement says the he learned from the scriptures about the sphere of the earth.
Greeks know the earth was spherical at least as early as the 5th century BC if not 100 years before that.
I didn't see you back up that assertion ... but at any rate it doesn't change the fact that Clement based his claim on scripture.
And what non-circular reason do you have for anyone to care what's written in the scripture?
Until you can demonstrate that your so called god even exists, claims bases in scripture are irrelevant.
A bit caustic aye...I was asked to provide evidence from scripture because someone thought I couldn't....when I do I shouldn't have ... this illustrates my point about skeptics...they don't use consistent reasoning. They follow a line until it fails and then pick up a contradictory line never realizing their flip flops cancel out their own arguments.
Even easier. By definition God is not constrained by anything. Least of all someone's opinion of how he should act. We're interested in what our relationship with God actually is, not what we think it should be.
God is restrained in one thing: He is not man that He should lie or do anything wrong. The Lord is Righteous in all His ways and faithful in all He does.
How do you explain the atrocities in the OT?
What makes them atrocities?
By any standard of decency we have.
Is it considered fair and just to slaughter women and children, take the virgins as sex slaves?
This stuff doesn't come from any sort of God, it's just a reflection of the beliefs, attitudes and moral of the people who wrote their stories in their own time and place in history.
Which is why God had a makeover in new testament times, influence from Greek Philosophy, etc.....St Paul himself borrowing heavily from Greek philosophy from his time spent in Greece.
I don't know of any way to precisely ascertain it.
In my reading of what I consider the best evidence available, I believe the local presentations of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. the earths around 4.5 billion years old, and modern mans been around for 100,000 to 250,000 years.
What do you thinks closer, the numbers I proposed above, or those proposed by Bishop Ussher with all three created around 6,000 years ago?
Homo sapien sapiens, about 200,000 years ago. But that's boring. More interesting is when did man become distinguished from animals. As the title suggests about 70,000 years ago. Syntactical speech was a big one. And others such as ritual burial of the dead (and much more) suggest an enlightenment which is generally characterized as a soul.
Are you kidding, NH. Do you think Satan would be interested? Why should he be? Doesent he have enough suckers signed up to burn for eternity without learning new tricks to sucker in people like Rimfire?
You somehow think his wings have clipped. It hasnt happened yet. He hasnt been cast yet into the Lake of Fire, just yet.
He'll take all the minions he can get. Minions, evil spirits, are sneaky but when discovered (early anyway) are easy to get rid of. Something along the lines of, "In the name of Jesus Christ begone!" Then figure out which door you opened to let him in and close it, lock it, and throw away the key. And be on guard because they don't give up.
According to the story, Satan does the will of god, the role he was created for in this little biblical drama...as the verses clearly state, God Himself being the Author of Evil.
Not so. It is not me making the claim, but the Bible that tells us that God created evil. The verses are there for anyone to see and read. I have quoted some of these verses in this thread.
The Bible shows scientific knowledge beyond what the writers knew themselves: Isa. 40: 22 It is he who sits above the "circle" of the earth,
Circles are flat.
The circle is flat plane two dimensional , how Christians perceive it as a three dimensional sphere is beyond sound rational minds.
In an exam a person would marked wrong if they identified a sphere as just a circle. to be that stupid one would have to totally ignore overwheliing worldly evidence of the difference.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Oh now there's a whopping big pile of BS.
the Bible that tells us that God created evil. The verses are there for anyone to see and read. .
christians are often highly selective as to what they believe in the Bible.
Ive found some have got rather angry and go into denial when some dare to quote the words of God from - Asaiah 45:7 KJV "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
So far we have a God that:
has total dominion over conditions in a burning hell. creates evil empowers Satan directs Satan to do wicked things.
Seems to me He needs to kill a whole lot more. I would.
A sinner is a Satan serving enemy of God, so the chances of your perfect God thinking the same as you are rather remote.
all the cHristians here on the campfire are sick weak and lost transgressor individuals that are in dire need of a 24hr/365 days year spiritual shepherd and physician..Essentially your God deems you as wicked disobedient helpless scatterbrains. though your own egos like to tell yourselves and others different.
hence the likes of you , TF49, etc ...saying you have the 'truth' or are the 'guiding light' is cringe worthy... you are not the kind anyone should be taking any advice from in 'finding God'
When your types start serving God [rather than being his wicked enemy] and are able set a righteous God worthy example , come back and talk to us.
something for you to consider - even Satan has been invited by God to heavenly realms, while your trash asses are still on the outer,- have never even got a look- in.
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Sloppy reporting at best. As written, it is an undeniably contradictory account of an event that was most probably an epileptic seizure. In both instances, being open to interpretation and needing explanation, the interpretation made by those who already have a conclusion, already believe, is skewed in favour of faith rather than reason or probability.
Actually it was quite a simple explanation. No seizures needed.
"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. " Not a root or a branch will be left to them."
Wow imagine that ...God says there will be nothing remaining of the transgressor.
how does one torture and torment forever what has been totally destroyed and amounts to nothing?
If one has been turned to spent ash of no worth or value, then what actually remains that can continue to burn for eternity? its easy to see that there is an actual end to the burning/consumption process for sinners.
However, nowhere does it say the devil , false profit and Beast will be turned to ASH, because their fate ( Rev20:10) is described as different and very specific (ie; tormented forever).
It is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss the Biblical concepts of hell and torment vs annihilation ... I will simply say that you often are not distinguishing between body, soul, and spirit in your interpretations and applications of passages. As a starting primer consider that Jesus' body laid in the grave, His spirit went to God--"into they hands I commend my spirit," and His soul went to Hades (thou wilt not leave my soul in hell) to preach to the spirits in prison as the scriptures testify.
AFAIC for myself id just as soon you go to hell. Im still rooting for you to see the light and be saved because of Him. He doesnt want the devil to win and get you and subject you to the misery all of us deserve.
The docs may say youre gonna die, but its your choice. He says you can live forever and never truly die.
Whats it cost you to ask Christ to come into your heart and make you a believer? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You dont have to give up smoking, drinking or cussin and you prolly already gave up the good stuff.
All you then gotta do is ask Him to forgive your sorry sinning hide and mean you are sorry for having done it your way.
Good fortune and God bless as your needs may be.
jag, i can sense that you truly believe that the greek & egyptian ideology did not dilute or change the hebrew theology.
others disagree. but the many who walk among us buy into the greek & egyptian dilution. the age of the intellect, the ego, and reasoning.
and perhaps they are correct. possibly overall it would be better for the rank & file if it turned out they are correct.
in the final summation, those who helped gain success are rewarded, those who didn't help such achievement are punished?
Yup it's another skeptic's illusion that leads to revisionist history. People like the ideas of novel concepts even if they cannot be substantiated with the facts. The ancient pagans of the world and the Jews/Christians understood their areas of commonality and stark differences. However, the Jews and Christians never borrowed from paganism for their scriptures--and their scriptures warned against that.The greatest proof of this is the complete rejection of polytheism and its practices.
In my reading of what I consider the best evidence available, I believe the local presentations of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. the earths around 4.5 billion years old, and modern mans been around for 100,000 to 250,000 years.
What do you thinks closer, the numbers I proposed above, or those proposed by Bishop Ussher with all three created around 6,000 years ago?
The beginning of Genesis indicates that there was a chaotic mass of water and earth before the literal 6 day creation began. Based on this there can be a lot of geological evidence from before the start of creation of the world as we know it today, that still bears evidence. Additionally creation called all the waters into ONE place for the dry land to appear- more catastrophic geological evidence. There is also the evidence for the tectonic plate shift and divisions of the earth and divided bodies of water in the days of Peleg--more catastrophic geological evidence. The breakup of the Pangaea explains a lot. These are 3 major sources of geology outside of Noah's flood. Any time there is a major geological catastrophic event radiometric dating is skewed because it accomplishes in a short time what otherwise would take millions of years to produce. So I am saying a couple things regarding geology: 1. the pre-existing creation matter of earth and water could bear witness to millions of years 2. the 4 catastrophic geological events recorded in scripture will skew radiometric dating significantly and in this case the geology will be much younger than carbon dating would show 3. the creation and biology of the earth as recorded in Genesis is young
So in short I believe in a young literal 6 day creation that was based on a pre-existing geology of earth and water as the Bible describes. I am simply taking the Bible for what it says and I see no conflict between it and the concrete evidence of science. Radiometric dating is based on uniformitarianism which is a purely speculative and inaccurate assumption when applied to time that lapses over catastrophic events.
Pythagoras speculated but it wasn't recognized as proven till the 2-3rd century. Isaiah recorded it as fact long before that.[/quote]
It is fact that the authorship and when Isaiah was written remains controversial. That you would cite Isaiah recording the earth as 'spherical' previous to Pythagoras without acknowledging the scholarship behind questioning when the book of Isaiah was written is plainly disingenuous.
Greeks know the earth was spherical at least as early as the 5th century BC if not 100 years before that. Pythagoras speculated but it wasn't recognized as proven till the 2-3rd century. Isaiah recorded it as fact long before that.
It is fact that the authorship and when Isaiah was written remains controversial. That you would cite Isaiah recording the earth as 'spherical' previous to Pythagoras without acknowledging the scholarship behind questioning when the book of Isaiah was written is plainly disingenuous.
No sir it is not--the skeptics create unproven speculations and then they assume that we should honor those unproven speculations--won't happen here. At a minimum Isaiah predates Cyrus because both Daniel and Isaiah prophesied of the rise of Persia and the destruction of Babylon before they occurred. A prophecy wouldn't get much credibility if it was written after the event--it's inspiration would be rejected outright by the Jews.
The Bible shows scientific knowledge beyond what the writers knew themselves: Isa. 40: 22 It is he who sits above the "circle" of the earth,
Circles are flat.
The circle is flat plane two dimensional , how Christians perceive it as a three dimensional sphere is beyond sound rational minds.
In an exam a person would marked wrong if they identified a sphere as just a circle. to be that stupid one would have to totally ignore overwheliing worldly evidence of the difference.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Oh now there's a whopping big pile of BS.
the Bible that tells us that God created evil. The verses are there for anyone to see and read. .
christians are often highly selective as to what they believe in the Bible.
Ive found some have got rather angry and go into denial when some dare to quote the words of God from - Asaiah 45:7 KJV "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
So far we have a God that:
has total dominion over conditions in a burning hell. creates evil empowers Satan directs Satan to do wicked things.
Have you missed that the Hebrew word can be translated circle or sphere or that the ancient Vulgate translation used sphere in this passage?
Greeks know the earth was spherical at least as early as the 5th century BC if not 100 years before that. Pythagoras speculated but it wasn't recognized as proven till the 2-3rd century. Isaiah recorded it as fact long before that.
It is fact that the authorship and when Isaiah was written remains controversial. That you would cite Isaiah recording the earth as 'spherical' previous to Pythagoras without acknowledging the scholarship behind questioning when the book of Isaiah was written is plainly disingenuous.
No sir it is not--the skeptics create unproven speculations and then they assume that we should honor those unproven speculations--won't happen here. At a minimum Isaiah predates Cyrus because both Daniel and Isaiah prophesied of the rise of Persia and the destruction of Babylon before they occurred. A prophecy wouldn't get much credibility if it was written after the event--it's inspiration would be rejected outright by the Jews.
Circular logic is not helping support your claims on this thread.
Even easier. By definition God is not constrained by anything. Least of all someone's opinion of how he should act. We're interested in what our relationship with God actually is, not what we think it should be.
God is restrained in one thing: He is not man that He should lie or do anything wrong. The Lord is Righteous in all His ways and faithful in all He does.
How do you explain the atrocities in the OT?
What makes them atrocities?
By any standard of decency we have.
Is it considered fair and just to slaughter women and children, take the virgins as sex slaves?
This stuff doesn't come from any sort of God, it's just a reflection of the beliefs, attitudes and moral of the people who wrote their stories in their own time and place in history.
Which is why God had a makeover in new testament times, influence from Greek Philosophy, etc.....St Paul himself borrowing heavily from Greek philosophy from his time spent in Greece.
This was already addressed. Do you believe that the bombing of all citizens in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Berlin were immoral because the Axis powers refused to surrender under any terms? This was a much larger scale of indiscriminate destruction than the Canaanites who were given many opportunities and generations to reform before they were destroyed.
The NT makeover theory is logically unsustainable--the NT writers quoted the OT writers with no apologies--including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Is that so? What is this thing called 'God?' Does it have an appearance? A body? Is it invisible? Magical? A Cosmic Magician? Who has it right, the Hindus in the form of Brahman, the Muslims?
What are we talking about when the word 'God' is being used?
In Exodus 34: 6-7 this is who He says he is in part to and for those who believe: “And He (The Lord), passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, ‘The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.'”
That is just a start as to who He is. He is also omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. And the Creator of all.
Circular logic is not helping your claims on this thread.
Explain how my reasoning is circular and your is not. I don't need to speculate a theory and then asked it to be recognized to sustain my position. I simply said it would be purely ludicrous to claim to be prophet and then write things after they occurred, especially in a Jewish culture that believed in prophets and tested their status by their accuracy. This is sound reasoning. You can't evade the fact that Isaiah predates Pythagoras. Even he was speculating--as the Greeks did not accept a spherical earth as fact till the 2-3rd centuries.
Circular logic is not helping your claims on this thread.
Explain how my reasoning is circular and your is not. I don't need to speculate a theory and then asked it to be recognized to sustain my position. I simply said it would be purely ludicrous to claim to be prophet and then write things after they occurred, especially in a Jewish culture that believed in prophets and tested their status by their accuracy. This is sound reasoning. You can't evade the fact that Isaiah predates Pythagoras. Even he was speculating--as the Greeks did not accept a spherical earth as fact till the 2-3rd centuries.
You only need to look as far as your proof that the book of Isaiah was fully written by Isaiah
I find it interesting to note how many times the charge "circular reasoning" is made on this thread without demonstrating how the reasoning is circular. Skeptics use the "circular reasoning" charge like a widely waving wand similar to the liberals who use the "race card" when logical reasoning and facts do not sustain their position. Just throw it out there and the stigma is supposed to end the argument - even if it is a non-sequitur that is also an ad hominem.
Outlawing Creation science was not based on science but rather upon previous liberal interpretations of the constitution. The Declaration of Independence says our rights come from our Creator who made all men equal. When Creation science is outlawed we are attacking both science and the foundation of equal rights. Our Founders were creationists.
Not-quite-so-fast...
Many of our Founders were Deists in varying degrees. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson lead that list. Jefferson cut the “miracles” out of his “Jefferson Bible” and had little use for your Bible.
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Circular logic is not helping your claims on this thread.
Explain how my reasoning is circular and your is not. I don't need to speculate a theory and then asked it to be recognized to sustain my position. I simply said it would be purely ludicrous to claim to be prophet and then write things after they occurred, especially in a Jewish culture that believed in prophets and tested their status by their accuracy. This is sound reasoning. You can't evade the fact that Isaiah predates Pythagoras. Even he was speculating--as the Greeks did not accept a spherical earth as fact till the 2-3rd centuries.
You only need to look as far as your proof that the book of Isaiah was fully written by Isaiah
Points can be established by both internal and external witnesses without being circular provided they use sound logic. You do not attempt to address the logic you just wave the "circular reasoning wand" even when it makes no sense. Josephus says this: For he stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write thus throughout all Asia: “Thus says Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty has appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is the God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judah” (Antiquities 11.1.1).
Are you going to suggest that Josephus made up this decree of Cyrus?
Outlawing Creation science was not based on science but rather upon previous liberal interpretations of the constitution. The Declaration of Independence says our rights come from our Creator who made all men equal. When Creation science is outlawed we are attacking both science and the foundation of equal rights. Our Founders were creationists.
Not-quite-so-fast...
Many of our Founders were Deists in varying degrees. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson lead that list. Jefferson cut the “miracles” out of his “Jefferson Bible” and had little use for your Bible.
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Agreed that some were Deists but they all believed in creation which was my point.
I find it interesting to note how many times the charge "circular reasoning" is made on this thread without demonstrating how the reasoning is circular. Skeptics use the "circular reasoning" charge like a widely waving wand similar to the liberals who use the "race card" when logical reasoning and facts do not sustain their position. Just throw it out there and the stigma is supposed to end the argument - even if it is a non-sequitur that is also an ad hominem.
That you cannot see the logical fallacy in your arguments supporting your claims is telling.
Let's notice what Jefferson wrote about God and morals:
The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time;
In 1823, he wrote to John Adams referring to “the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore” while denouncing atheism.
“[T]he Christian religion when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity & simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, & the freest expression of the human mind,” he explained.12 It was a “benign religion … inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude and love of man, acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence.”13 Based on these understandings, Jefferson demonstrated a deep, even devout, admiration of Jesus, “the purity & sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquence of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which he conveys them...”14 At times, Jefferson described these moral and ethical teachings of Jesus as “primitive christianity” before its perversion by church leaders seeking temporal power.15
On Jesus ...Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
Imagine how different our country would be if our most liberal politician would espouse these sentiments and if the rest of them were even more conservative in their thinking ...
My point remains that your Biblical “proofs” fall short for many of us. Jefferson had a very different idea about the “Creator”
That was an historical reference--not a Biblical proof. Nothing will convince a man against his will--God gives you that freedom and then will hold you accountable for how you used it.
The other founding "liberal" Benjamin Franklin: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? Benjamin Franklin: Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of IndependenceWe have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."
George Washington: I am sure there never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe, that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God, who is alone able to protect them. Letter to John Armstrong, 11 March 1782, in Ford's Writings of George Washington (1891), vol. XII, p. 111.
If anyone is interested in such, I came upon a podcast called History in the Bible, by a fellow named Gary Stevens. I have been listening to the second part, concerning the New Testament. Quite interesting to me, I've learned alot, and plan to go back and listen to part 1 about the Old Testament. It's a layman's guide into the research and archaeology behind the biblical texts, more or less.
Skepticism which is based on the rejection of God, creation, and moral absolutes is a detriment to our nation and society-even though it is right that we allow that liberty of conscience.But in the end our nation will only survive if we understand what our founders understood: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, October 11, 1798.)
It seems believers are incapable of understanding why quoting the bible to prove the bible makes no sense. Its the same as quoting the koran to prove the koran makes no sense. Without being able to quote the myths in the bible they are helpless. To believe in the bible or koran is fine but that is all it is a belief not a fact. Of course I expect you to quote the bible to answer this.
It appears to me that the agenda is "Let's scrap everything we know from historical accounts and dig in the dirt and rewrite history based on what we deduce from archaeology."
It appears to me that the agenda is "Let's scrap everything we know from historical accounts and dig in the dirt and rewrite history based on what we deduce from archaeology."
Islam is a cult, a way of life, it requires you convert to islam or die. No other options exist for the true muslim practicing islam. It is not a religion.
Yeah that's the one. I'd be interested in the opinions of anyone who listens to it and knows more about the subject than I do. I find the guys way of talking kinda hard to listen to, at least in the beginning, but I got used to it and the material was interesting enough to continue with.
The other founding "liberal" Benjamin Franklin: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? Benjamin Franklin: Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of IndependenceWe have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."
By John Fea This article originally appeared in Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine Volume XXXVII, Number 4 - Fall 2011 Ezra Stiles (1727–1795), the Calvinist president of Yale College, was curious about Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) and his faith. In 1790, he asked the nation's senior statesman if he would commit his religious beliefs to paper. Franklin agreed. He was nearing the end of his life - he died six weeks later - and possibly believed this was as good a time as any to summarize the religious creed by which he lived.
"Here is my Creed," Franklin wrote to Stiles. "I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this ... As for Jesus of Nazareth ... I think the system of Morals and Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw ... but I have ... some Doubts to his Divinity; though' it is a Question I do not dogmatism upon, having never studied it, and think it is needless to busy myself with it now, where I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."
The narrative was classic Franklin, witty and to the point. Religion was worthless unless it promoted virtuous behavior. Jesus was the greatest moral teacher who ever lived, but he was not God.
He formed his own Toronto-based ministry, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, in 1984 and is the host of radio shows called “Let My People Think” and “Just Thinking,” all of which has helped him pocket a net worth of $7.5 million.Sep 14, 2016 Hooch.net › richest-religious-leaders Gilded Gods: How The Richest Religious Leaders Live - Hooch.net
Any preacher with a net worth of 7.5 million dollars has completely missed the point of Jesus teachings. Anyone that promotes said Charlatans has also completely missed the point.
Wow I had not read anything of this until today; very sad to hear.
Flirting with the LDS, Roman Catholic Universalist mystics, women with whom he isn’t married, and finally misrepresentation of his creds.
All damnable.
The message in the OP, however, was correct in spite of the eventual fall of the messenger.
The other founding "liberal" Benjamin Franklin: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? Benjamin Franklin: Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of IndependenceWe have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."
By John Fea This article originally appeared in Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine Volume XXXVII, Number 4 - Fall 2011 Ezra Stiles (1727–1795), the Calvinist president of Yale College, was curious about Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) and his faith. In 1790, he asked the nation's senior statesman if he would commit his religious beliefs to paper. Franklin agreed. He was nearing the end of his life - he died six weeks later - and possibly believed this was as good a time as any to summarize the religious creed by which he lived.
"Here is my Creed," Franklin wrote to Stiles. "I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this ... As for Jesus of Nazareth ... I think the system of Morals and Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw ... but I have ... some Doubts to his Divinity; though' it is a Question I do not dogmatism upon, having never studied it, and think it is needless to busy myself with it now, where I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."
The narrative was classic Franklin, witty and to the point. Religion was worthless unless it promoted virtuous behavior. Jesus was the greatest moral teacher who ever lived, but he was not God.
I would have assessed him the same from what I know of his writings. My concern is not that all people are "christian" (that is a voluntary faith choice) but rather that we believe in God and a moral law that goes above the power of government. We need to hold government accountable for good moral (not religious) behavior. They need to understand that our equal rights are given us by our Creator who created all men equally and that good government will seek to support that and not look at themselves as the owner and issuer of rights.
It appears to me that the agenda is "Let's scrap everything we know from historical accounts and dig in the dirt and rewrite history based on what we deduce from archaeology."
Should we do this with American History also?
You are wrong as to what the agenda is. The agenda is to have multiple, independent lines of evidence to establish what is the most probable.
"Here is my Creed," Franklin wrote to Stiles. "I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this ... As for Jesus of Nazareth ... I think the system of Morals and Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw ... but I have ... some Doubts to his Divinity; though' it is a Question I do not dogmatism upon, having never studied it, and think it is needless to busy myself with it now, where I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."
The narrative was classic Franklin, witty and to the point. Religion was worthless unless it promoted virtuous behavior. Jesus was the greatest moral teacher who ever lived, but he was not God.
Franklin didn't say Jesus was not God. He said he didn't know if He was and had doubts, but chose not to pursue them at that stage in his life.
Pity. He was so close to achieving his salvation. Perhaps he did, though, in a moment of revelation and understanding.
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
In early Christianity, folks were forced to convert or die. Kind of sounds sort of familiar.
Until Constantine they were largely persecuted and believed in persecuting no one. Making Rome officially Christian eventually led Christians to an about face to persecute others. However the whole church did not go along with this state religion movement and in turn they also were persecuted--but they were the ones which were most accurately modeling Christ. It was the same all down through the Middle ages--state established Christianity persecuting and suppressing dissent --- which included free church Christians--i.e. the followers of Jesus' teachings and life.
The other founding "liberal" Benjamin Franklin: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? Benjamin Franklin: Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of IndependenceWe have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."
By John Fea This article originally appeared in Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine Volume XXXVII, Number 4 - Fall 2011 Ezra Stiles (1727–1795), the Calvinist president of Yale College, was curious about Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) and his faith. In 1790, he asked the nation's senior statesman if he would commit his religious beliefs to paper. Franklin agreed. He was nearing the end of his life - he died six weeks later - and possibly believed this was as good a time as any to summarize the religious creed by which he lived.
"Here is my Creed," Franklin wrote to Stiles. "I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this ... As for Jesus of Nazareth ... I think the system of Morals and Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw ... but I have ... some Doubts to his Divinity; though' it is a Question I do not dogmatism upon, having never studied it, and think it is needless to busy myself with it now, where I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."
The narrative was classic Franklin, witty and to the point. Religion was worthless unless it promoted virtuous behavior. Jesus was the greatest moral teacher who ever lived, but he was not God.
I would have assessed him the same from what I know of his writings. My concern is not that all people are "christian" (that is a voluntary faith choice) but rather that we believe in God and a moral law that goes above the power of government. We need to hold government accountable for good moral (not religious) behavior. They need to understand that our equal rights are given us by our Creator who created all men equally and that good government will seek to support that and not look at themselves as the owner and issuer of rights.
And there it is: Those who believe in the big bang can not logically believe in the premise this nation and its constitution are founded on.
"Here is my Creed," Franklin wrote to Stiles. "I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this ... As for Jesus of Nazareth ... I think the system of Morals and Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw ... but I have ... some Doubts to his Divinity; though' it is a Question I do not dogmatism upon, having never studied it, and think it is needless to busy myself with it now, where I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."
The narrative was classic Franklin, witty and to the point. Religion was worthless unless it promoted virtuous behavior. Jesus was the greatest moral teacher who ever lived, but he was not God.
Franklin didn't say Jesus was not God. He said he didn't know if He was and had doubts, but chose not to pursue them at that stage in his life.
Pity. He was so close to achieving his salvation. Perhaps he did, though, in a moment of revelation and understanding.
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Seems Ben Franklin was also a mason. Masons are required to profess a belief in an almighty God, but that god could the god of the Jews.... or god or the muslims or whatever.
Franklins final words seem consistent with this. Sweet sounding words can still be lies from the pit of hell. Believer in”God” but not in Jesus the Messiah?
It appears to me that the agenda is "Let's scrap everything we know from historical accounts and dig in the dirt and rewrite history based on what we deduce from archaeology."
Should we do this with American History also?
You are wrong as to what the agenda is. The agenda is to have multiple, independent lines of evidence to establish what is the most probable.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
In early Christianity, folks were forced to convert or die. Kind of sounds sort of familiar.
In early Christianity folks were forced to hide or die for 250 years.
Still, it survived and went on to become a Roman thing with Constantine, until Martin Luther arrived on the scene and freed the Bible from demagogues who chose to exploit it.
While it was a Roman thing, it was also militarized to stop islam and succeeded in that one task, even though it became things it should have not have become.
The Bible and Christianity had not seen the light of day for a very long time and the last several centuries it can be discussed fully and openly, though lieberal demoncraps and other vile filth worthy only of Hell would have that not be as it is.
It appears to me that the agenda is "Let's scrap everything we know from historical accounts and dig in the dirt and rewrite history based on what we deduce from archaeology."
Should we do this with American History also?
You are wrong as to what the agenda is. The agenda is to have multiple, independent lines of evidence to establish what is the most probable.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
It appears to me that the agenda is "Let's scrap everything we know from historical accounts and dig in the dirt and rewrite history based on what we deduce from archaeology."
Should we do this with American History also?
You are wrong as to what the agenda is. The agenda is to have multiple, independent lines of evidence to establish what is the most probable.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
well said!
Back up a second, who'd agenda exactly are we talking about here?
Their conclusions are radical: that the Israelites are Canaanites who forged a new identity, that there was no Exodus, that King David was not much more than a bandit, that the empire of Solomon never existed, and that the God of Israel may have had a wife, Asherah. All this, the new wave say, was whitewashed by the authors of the Old Testament (Tanakh), who only put pen to paper centuries after the events they wrote about.
Talk about creating myths and fairy tales ... Archaeology has progressed far enough in the last two centuries in the discoveries of steles that correlate with Bible accounts that these starting assumptions are so bizarre that only someone who really wants to create a new story for money, popularity, or a liberal agenda would consider it. These guys know that the left and media are open to any new possibilities for revisionist history. They also know that most people do not know or care enough about history to test their hypothesis. Dan Brown's Da Vinci code is a good example of someone who could sell revisionist history. Some of his conclusions are very juvenile--like the Bible was decided at Nicaea when they did not even discuss that as an item of business.
I haven't listened to his Old Testament series yet, only most of the second. He makes no claim as to which versions correct or better than others, simply lays out what they say, where they came from, who was responsible for them etc. The first series looks interesting, looking forward to it. I'm sure there is plenty of nonsense theories and claims floating around out there, I'm really only interested in hearing what the claims are and what the evidence is to back it up. From what I've heard from this fellow so far, he really only seems interested in the history and archeology of the Bible, not really proving that one view is the correct one.
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Sloppy reporting at best. As written, it is an undeniably contradictory account of an event that was most probably an epileptic seizure. In both instances, being open to interpretation and needing explanation, the interpretation made by those who already have a conclusion, already believe, is skewed in favour of faith rather than reason or probability.
Actually it was quite a simple explanation. No seizures needed.
Occams Razor. People once believed that Spirits moved the wind and there were gods residing in the mountains and forests....so what is more probable, that Saul fell and had hallucinations because be suffered from epilepsy or that he was actually in contact with God?
Skepticism which is based on the rejection of God, creation, and moral absolutes is a detriment to our nation and society-even though it is right that we allow that liberty of conscience.But in the end our nation will only survive if we understand what our founders understood: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, October 11, 1798.)
Skepticism is none of those things....you may be thinking of cynicism. Or perhaps some sort of political ideology.
This was already addressed. Do you believe that the bombing of all citizens in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Berlin were immoral because the Axis powers refused to surrender under any terms? This was a much larger scale of indiscriminate destruction than the Canaanites who were given many opportunities and generations to reform before they were destroyed.
The NT makeover theory is logically unsustainable--the NT writers quoted the OT writers with no apologies--including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
A lot of things were asserted but absolutely nothing was addressed, there is no comparison to be made between a God - presuming existence - ordering the butchering of women and children and taking virgins as sex slaves and what the allies did in the war, which is something that we alone are responsible for.
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Sloppy reporting at best. As written, it is an undeniably contradictory account of an event that was most probably an epileptic seizure. In both instances, being open to interpretation and needing explanation, the interpretation made by those who already have a conclusion, already believe, is skewed in favour of faith rather than reason or probability.
Actually it was quite a simple explanation. No seizures needed.
Occams Razor. People once believed that Spirits moved the wind and there were gods residing in the mountains and forests....so what is more probable, that Saul fell and had hallucinations because be suffered from epilepsy or that he was actually in contact with God?
What is the likely scenario?
Does epilepsy change a person's world view and make them intelligently articulate what they once detested? I think you are trying too hard and are not making a credible argument. You accept the account in part but not in whole. Why do you even believe that he had an experience at all? Or maybe it was just Damascus road rage because his skeptic employers weren't paying him enough. But then he went and worked for even less 😎
This was already addressed. Do you believe that the bombing of all citizens in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Berlin were immoral because the Axis powers refused to surrender under any terms? This was a much larger scale of indiscriminate destruction than the Canaanites who were given many opportunities and generations to reform before they were destroyed.
The NT makeover theory is logically unsustainable--the NT writers quoted the OT writers with no apologies--including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
A lot of things were asserted but absolutely nothing was addressed, there is no comparison to be made between a God - presuming existence - ordering the butchering of women and children and taking virgins as sex slaves and what the allies did in the war, which is something that we alone are responsible for.
I laid out the Biblical criteria for it a number of pages back. When asked to address a Biblical question I give a Biblical answer. I'm not going to make things up or speculate when God said why He did what He did. How can that not be addressing the issue?
People once believed that Spirits moved the wind and there were gods residing in the mountains and forests....so what is more probable, that Saul fell and had hallucinations because be suffered from epilepsy or that he was actually in contact with God? ..
Christians still believe that the ground tremble of volcanoe eruptions and earthquakes are result of the Lord expressing his anger, and the mythical Ark had dinosaurs loaded aboard.
Then you have the crackpot Catholics that venerate-worship and pray over human bone remains.
Village idiot is the common denominator trait among members of many a christian group.
So maybe it was Damascus road rage ... or perhaps he was late for a soccer game between Jerusalem and Damascus and the sun reflected off his neon road safety Jersey which blinded his eyes and he fell hitting his head on a rock and then heard voices. But his fellow traveling skeptics didn't believe he fell and heard voices because each time after that when he fell he didn't hear any. So they all took a turn at squinting at the sun and then falling trying to duplicate the event. In the it was inconclusive and they were late for the game. Paul was so distraught that switched to the Damascus team as a fan and never fell again. Then he wrote a book about the whole event. While his skeptic friends could not verify the account they said it was the most authentic conversion they ever read about.
In early Christianity, folks were forced to convert or die. Kind of sounds sort of familiar.
In early Christianity folks were forced to hide or die for 250 years.
Still, it survived and went on to become a Roman thing with Constantine, until Martin Luther arrived on the scene and freed the Bible from demagogues who chose to exploit it.
While it was a Roman thing, it was also militarized to stop islam and succeeded in that one task, even though it became things it should have not have become.
The Bible and Christianity had not seen the light of day for a very long time and the last several centuries it can be discussed fully and openly, though lieberal demoncraps and other vile filth worthy only of Hell would have that not be as it is.
It was also a Spanish Inquisition thing where other religions such as the Jews were forced to convert to Christianity. So from the early 4th Century up to the early 1500's other religions were persecuted by Christians.
Then a skeptic society was formed because, based on this new information that had been personally tested, they felt this could serve as a basis to correct Luke's skewed narratives. Understanding what happened to Paul would give new interpretive analysis to his epistles. Since that was a lot of the new testament...the remaining texts would benefit from intense scrutiny also. Everyone agreed that they will fall down and bump their heads each time they were unsure how to reconstruct a text. Soon my friends we will have new Bible. This will merit a movie and some press coverage. We will be lavished with praise for thinking outside the box. Because it's novel and popular it won't need to be historically defensible. And because all religions are equally valid we will be able to start our own with credibility. The potential here is amazing.
In early Christianity, folks were forced to convert or die. Kind of sounds sort of familiar.
In early Christianity folks were forced to hide or die for 250 years.
Still, it survived and went on to become a Roman thing with Constantine, until Martin Luther arrived on the scene and freed the Bible from demagogues who chose to exploit it.
While it was a Roman thing, it was also militarized to stop islam and succeeded in that one task, even though it became things it should have not have become.
The Bible and Christianity had not seen the light of day for a very long time and the last several centuries it can be discussed fully and openly, though lieberal demoncraps and other vile filth worthy only of Hell would have that not be as it is.
It was also a Spanish Inquisition thing where other religions such as the Jews were forced to convert to Christianity. So from the early 4th Century up to the early 1500's other religions were persecuted by Christians.
Christians still believe that the ground tremble of volcanoe eruptions and earthquakes are result of the Lord expressing his anger, and the mythical Ark had dinosaurs loaded aboard
And thunder is just angels bowling. You forgot that one.
When the church has not followed Christ they have done horrible things. When society and nations reject God they do things far worse i.e. atheistic Communism.
Their conclusions are radical: that the Israelites are Canaanites who forged a new identity, that there was no Exodus, that King David was not much more than a bandit, that the empire of Solomon never existed, and that the God of Israel may have had a wife, Asherah. All this, the new wave say, was whitewashed by the authors of the Old Testament (Tanakh), who only put pen to paper centuries after the events they wrote about.
Talk about creating myths and fairy tales ... Archaeology has progressed far enough in the last two centuries in the discoveries of steles that correlate with Bible accounts that these starting assumptions are so bizarre that only someone who really wants to create a new story for money, popularity, or a liberal agenda would consider it. These guys know that the left and media are open to any new possibilities for revisionist history. They also know that most people do not know or care enough about history to test their hypothesis. Dan Brown's Da Vinci code is a good example of someone who could sell revisionist history. Some of his conclusions are very juvenile--like the Bible was decided at Nicaea when they did not even discuss that as an item of business.
Dan Brown's works are not taken seriously by any credible biblical scholars:
However, if you want to discuss judeo christian myths, Modern Biblical Scholars agree The Exodus belongs at the top of the list:
There is an almost universal consensus among scholars that the Exodus story is best understood as myth;[38] more specifically, it is a "charter" (or foundation) myth, a story told to explain a society's origins and to provide the ideological foundation for its culture and institutions.[1] While some continue to discuss the potential historicity or plausibility of the Exodus story, the overwhelming majority have abandoned it as "a fruitless pursuit" (Dever, 2001).[39][40] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy).[41] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots.[42][43]. The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure,[44] and while, as William G. Dever writes, "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C.", archaeology cannot confirm his existence. [39]
When the church has not followed Christ they have done horrible things. When society and nations reject God they do things far worse i.e. atheistic Communism.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
The God in Numbers via Moses certainly seems to not condemn pedophelia.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
There is an almost universal consensus among scholars that the Exodus story is best understood as myth;[38] more specifically, it is a "charter" (or foundation) myth, a story told to explain a society's origins and to provide the ideological foundation for its culture and institutions.[1] While some continue to discuss the potential historicity or plausibility of the Exodus story, the overwhelming majority have abandoned it as "a fruitless pursuit" (Dever, 2001).[39][40] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy).[41] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots.[42][43]. The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure,[44] and while, as William G. Dever writes, "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C.", archaeology cannot confirm his existence. [39]
When I read things like this I wonder about the level of scholarship employed.[/quote]
The Proto-Sinaitic script was the first alphabetic writing system and developed sometime between about 1900 and 1700 BC. People speaking a Semitic language and living in Egypt and Sinai adapted the Egyptian hieroglyphic or hieratic scripts to write their language using the acrophonic principle. This invovled choosing about 30 glyphs, translating their Egyptian names into the Semitic language, and using the initial sounds of those names to represent the sounds of their language.
For example, the Egyptian nt (water) became mem in Semitic and represents the sound /m/, and eventually developed into the Latin letter M.
Inscriptions in Proto-Sinaitic have been found at Serabit el-Khadim (سرابيت الخادم) a mountain in Sinai and at a temple for the Egyptian goddess Hathor (ḥwt-ḥr) that is located there. The script was partially deciphered by Alan Gardiner in 1916. Inscriptions very similar to those found at Serabit el-Khadim have been found at Wadi el-Hol (وادي الهول).
When we have very specific archaeological evidence which proves the presence of Semitic people in Eqypt and that this proto Sinaitc script was the basis of the Hebrew alphabet, it leads me to conclude that liberal scholarship is based largely on prejudice. While the level of scholarship in the Wikipedia can be good at times, its always best to check it against other sources. I guess we need to ask how the Semites in Eqypt got to Canaan and spread their language around without ever making an exodus.
Name one formally organized atheistic nation that was beneficent.
Do you believe in the existence of any gods other than the Christian God?
Avoiding the pertinent question? The Bible looks at the idolatrous forms of gods on one hand as nothing, but on the other hand as living demons which stand behind those representations--so the idols are nothing but their demons are real.
Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"
Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).
However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).
So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”
First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.
These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.
The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.
Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.
Does epilepsy change a person's world view and make them intelligently articulate what they once detested? I think you are trying too hard and are not making a credible argument. You accept the account in part but not in whole. Why do you even believe that he had an experience at all? Or maybe it was just Damascus road rage because his skeptic employers weren't paying him enough. But then he went and worked for even less 😎
Your bias toward the incredible, the existence of fantastical, invisible magical beings, angels and demons, does not make you a fair judge of credibility in these matters. There are countless supernatural claims, Hinduism, Islam, ancient religions with their pantheons gods and demons, with each and every believer convinced of their own 'truth while dismissing the sceptic with the comment of 'credibility'
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
The God in Numbers via Moses certainly seems to not condemn pedophelia.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
Moab and Midian are the same confederate nation. Num.22:4 Their women seduced Israelite men and brought a judgment upon themselves. Num.25 As a result God called for their destruction since they were bent on destroying Israel by using sex to introduce them to false worship. But again all the nations were given warning ahead of time that they could make peace with Israel otherwise God would destroy them for their sin which had reached its fullness. Midian chose the path of seduction and depravity and reaped the promised judgment that they were forewarned about. The females below puberty were spared. Those who were spared were always given the option of following Jehovah and being included in the Jewish festivals.
Pedophilia was condemned in the family. Sparing their lives does not equate to pedophilia. Leviticus 18:7–16; Leviticus 20:11–21
They were not allowed to lie with women who had not converted to Judaism. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
There is an almost universal consensus among scholars that the Exodus story is best understood as myth;[38] more specifically, it is a "charter" (or foundation) myth, a story told to explain a society's origins and to provide the ideological foundation for its culture and institutions.[1] While some continue to discuss the potential historicity or plausibility of the Exodus story, the overwhelming majority have abandoned it as "a fruitless pursuit" (Dever, 2001).[39][40] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy).[41] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots.[42][43]. The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure,[44] and while, as William G. Dever writes, "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C.", archaeology cannot confirm his existence. [39]
When I read things like this I wonder about the level of scholarship employed.
The Proto-Sinaitic script was the first alphabetic writing system and developed sometime between about 1900 and 1700 BC. People speaking a Semitic language and living in Egypt and Sinai adapted the Egyptian hieroglyphic or hieratic scripts to write their language using the acrophonic principle. This invovled choosing about 30 glyphs, translating their Egyptian names into the Semitic language, and using the initial sounds of those names to represent the sounds of their language.
For example, the Egyptian nt (water) became mem in Semitic and represents the sound /m/, and eventually developed into the Latin letter M.
Inscriptions in Proto-Sinaitic have been found at Serabit el-Khadim (سرابيت الخادم) a mountain in Sinai and at a temple for the Egyptian goddess Hathor (ḥwt-ḥr) that is located there. The script was partially deciphered by Alan Gardiner in 1916. Inscriptions very similar to those found at Serabit el-Khadim have been found at Wadi el-Hol (وادي الهول).
When we have very specific archaeological evidence which proves the presence of Semitic people in Eqypt and that this proto Sinaitc script was the basis of the Hebrew alphabet, it leads me to conclude that liberal scholarship is based largely on prejudice. While the level of scholarship in the Wikipedia can be good at times, its always best to check it against other sources. I guess we need to ask how the Semites in Eqypt got to Canaan and spread their language around without ever making an exodus. [/quote]
Your thinking is way to linear. Keep in mind, Arabs are also "a Semitic people" as where the Phoneticians Assyrians, Akkadian, Eblaite, Hyskos (who were also know to inhabit Egypt), and Amharics, who reside as far south as Ethiopia. Semitic is not synonymous with the Jewish people.
Name one formally organized atheistic nation that was beneficent.
Do you believe in the existence of any gods other than the Christian God?
Avoiding the pertinent question? The Bible looks at the idolatrous forms of gods on one hand as nothing, but on the other hand as living demons which stand behind those representations--so the idols are nothing but their demons are real.
Your thinking is way to linear. Keep in mind, Arabs are also "a Semitic people" as where the Phoneticians Assyrians, Akkadian, Eblaite, Hyskos (who were also know to inhabit Egypt), and Amharics, who reside as far south as Ethiopia. Semitic is not synonymous with the Jewish people.
Missing the point my friend--the proto Sinaitc script was the basis of the Hebrew alphabet i.e. the Jews which then became the basis of other alphabets. There is no evidence of those other groups in Eqypt developing an alphabet while they were servant slaves.
Name one formally organized atheistic nation that was beneficent.
Do you believe in the existence of any gods other than the Christian God?
Avoiding the pertinent question? The Bible looks at the idolatrous forms of gods on one hand as nothing, but on the other hand as living demons which stand behind those representations--so the idols are nothing but their demons are real.
I didn't ask what the bible says.
I asked what do YOU believe?
what the bible says .. nor did you answer my question. Is there a reason?
Your thinking is way to linear. Keep in mind, Arabs are also "a Semitic people" as where the Phoneticians Assyrians, Akkadian, Eblaite, Hyskos (who were also know to inhabit Egypt), and Amharics, who reside as far south as Ethiopia. Semitic is not synonymous with the Jewish people.
Missing the point my friend--the proto Sinaitc script was the basis of the Hebrew alphabet i.e. the Jews which then became the basis of other alphabets. There is no evidence of those other groups in Eqypt developing an alphabet while they were servant slaves.
Actually, paleo-Hebrew was adopted from Phonetician, much like the Greek alphabet was also adopted from Phonetician.
And here's directions from God on what to do with that HOT captive:
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Your thinking is way to linear. Keep in mind, Arabs are also "a Semitic people" as where the Phoneticians Assyrians, Akkadian, Eblaite, Hyskos (who were also know to inhabit Egypt), and Amharics, who reside as far south as Ethiopia. Semitic is not synonymous with the Jewish people.
Missing the point my friend--the proto Sinaitc script was the basis of the Hebrew alphabet i.e. the Jews which then became the basis of other alphabets. There is no evidence of those other groups in Eqypt developing an alphabet while they were servant slaves.
Actually, paleo-Hebrew was adopted from Phonetician, much like the Greek alphabet was also adopted from Phonetician.
That's what most people used to believe but now its been proven that the Phoenicians borrowed. Even Britainnica records this now.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
The God in Numbers via Moses certainly seems to not condemn pedophelia.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
Moab and Midian are the same confederate nation. Num.22:4 Their women seduced Israelite men and brought a judgment upon themselves. Num.25 As a result God called for their destruction since they were bent on destroying Israel by using sex to introduce them to false worship. But again all the nations were given warning ahead of time that they could make peace with Israel otherwise God would destroy them for their sin which had reached its fullness. Midian chose the path of seduction and depravity and reaped the promised judgment that they were forewarned about. The females below puberty were spared. Those who were spared were always given the option of following Jehovah and being included in the Jewish festivals.
You should take a few minutes to contemplate what you are actually saying.
Moses told them to keep the 32,000 Virgins alive, but kill everyone else.
So how many people did they murder? 150,000? 250,000?....and for what, a few young men did what young men do, so they killed everyone but kept all those wicked virgins for themselves?
And here's directions from God on what to do with that HOT captive:
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Which means as a wife she had the privileges of a Jewess. Again I remind you that these laws are only relevant to the Jews. As Gentile Christian's we have never practiced this. All your points are irrelevant to our times. You however are making sweeping statements about Judaism who still considers their laws to be in effect.
Additionally you fa to recognize that whatever charge you make against Judaism is multiplied against ancient paganism.
Furthermore no one has answered if the I discriminate bombing of Germany and Japan on a larger scale was moral. You are not engaging in honest discussion.
32,000 virgin Midianite girls. I wonder what their ages where and what the Israelites did with them.....after all, they killed everyone else.
servants--see previous post above--they could not have relationships with heathens.
Servants.....biblical slang for slaves....as in sex slaves...
And Judah had no problem taking a Heathen woman:
Genesis 38:1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.
38:2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
At about that time [1], Judah had a sex with a Canaanite woman (the daughter of Shuah), which resulted in three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah.
38:3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.
38:4 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan.
38:5 And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.
The law was not given yet nor was this condoned. Another irrelevant example to the point you are trying to make. A skeptic tries to critique the Bible without having sufficient Bible knowledge or understanding to do so.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
The God in Numbers via Moses certainly seems to not condemn pedophelia.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
Moab and Midian are the same confederate nation. Num.22:4 Their women seduced Israelite men and brought a judgment upon themselves. Num.25 As a result God called for their destruction since they were bent on destroying Israel by using sex to introduce them to false worship. But again all the nations were given warning ahead of time that they could make peace with Israel otherwise God would destroy them for their sin which had reached its fullness. Midian chose the path of seduction and depravity and reaped the promised judgment that they were forewarned about. The females below puberty were spared. Those who were spared were always given the option of following Jehovah and being included in the Jewish festivals.
You should take a few minutes to contemplate what you are actually saying.
Moses told them to keep the 32,000 Virgins alive, but kill everyone else.
So how many people did they murder? 150,000? 250,000?....and for what, a few young men did what young men do, so they killed everyone but kept all those wicked virgins for themselves?
But you don't see this as an atrocity?
Really?
No it was not under those times and conditions. What about the bombing of Germany and Japan don't you see a contemporary atrocity?
And here's directions from God on what to do with that HOT captive:
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Which means as a wife she had the privileges of a Jewess. Again I remind you that these laws are only relevant to the Jews. As Gentile Christian's we have never practiced this. All your points are irrelevant to our times. You however are making sweeping statements about Judaism who still considers their laws to be in effect.
Additionally you fa to recognize that whatever charge you make against Judaism is multiplied against ancient paganism.
Furthermore no one has answered if the I discriminate bombing of Germany and Japan on a larger scale was moral. You are not engaging in honest discussion.
The bombing of Germany and Japan was not at the instruction of your (alleged) God, so it's irrelevant. Besides, you don't excuse bad behavior with other bad behaviors. The person not being honest is you. There's not moral equivalent between the aggression of the Axis powers in WWII and a few young bucks getting with some of the hotties from the neighboring tribe. Additionally, after the Axis powers surrendered, WE DIDN'T MURDER EVERYONE EXCEPT THE BREEDING AGE VIRGINS.
We did not engage in Genocide, in contrast, the Bible details over 30 genocides committed by the Israelites.
Pedophilia was condemned in the family. Sparing their lives does not equate to pedophilia. Leviticus 18:7–16; Leviticus 20:11–21
Spoils of war were considered family?
Yes, sparing their lives does not equate to pedophilia, but the point was, that it was not forbidden either.
It would help if you looked at all the evidence I provided. They were not to fornicate with or take heathen wives. If they converted they were to be a wife. That criteria forbids it. Again these were only the laws of Judaism for those times. You guys all keep making irrelevant points because that is all you have to make.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
The God in Numbers via Moses certainly seems to not condemn pedophelia.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
Moab and Midian are the same confederate nation. Num.22:4 Their women seduced Israelite men and brought a judgment upon themselves. Num.25 As a result God called for their destruction since they were bent on destroying Israel by using sex to introduce them to false worship. But again all the nations were given warning ahead of time that they could make peace with Israel otherwise God would destroy them for their sin which had reached its fullness. Midian chose the path of seduction and depravity and reaped the promised judgment that they were forewarned about. The females below puberty were spared. Those who were spared were always given the option of following Jehovah and being included in the Jewish festivals.
You should take a few minutes to contemplate what you are actually saying.
Moses told them to keep the 32,000 Virgins alive, but kill everyone else.
So how many people did they murder? 150,000? 250,000?....and for what, a few young men did what young men do, so they killed everyone but kept all those wicked virgins for themselves?
But you don't see this as an atrocity?
Really?
No it was not under those times and conditions.
Under your system of an absolute, unchanging morality, (remember your rant again Moral Relativism) it would still be justified today.
And here's directions from God on what to do with that HOT captive:
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Which means as a wife she had the privileges of a Jewess. Again I remind you that these laws are only relevant to the Jews. As Gentile Christian's we have never practiced this. All your points are irrelevant to our times. You however are making sweeping statements about Judaism who still considers their laws to be in effect.
Additionally you fa to recognize that whatever charge you make against Judaism is multiplied against ancient paganism.
Furthermore no one has answered if the I discriminate bombing of Germany and Japan on a larger scale was moral. You are not engaging in honest discussion.
The bombing of Germany and Japan was not at the instruction of your (alleged) God, so it's irrelevant. Besides, you don't excuse bad behavior with other bad behaviors. The person not being honest is you. There's not moral equivalent between the aggression of the Axis powers in WWII and a few young bucks getting with some of the hotties from the neighboring tribe. Additionally, after the Axis powers surrendered, WE DIDN'T MURDER EVERYONE EXCEPT THE BREEDING AGE VIRGINS.
We did not engage in Genocide, in contrast, the Bible details over 30 genocides committed by the Israelites.
Under those times it would not have been considered an atrocity by any God/god or nation. Your alleged morals would have scorned by all nations of that time. They all were more brutal than Israel including child sacrifice. What moral standard are you basing your judgment on? Certainly not one in effect in those times. Your reasoning is typical liberal with no moral basis or consideration of ancient law. There is no moral transgression unless a moral law is broken.
The Canaanites were offered terms of surrender. Israel was not allowed to expand beyond their prescribed borders with these measures.
Any current moral standard of judgment that you introduce will also not apply to those times but will apply to Allied bombings. Your thesis fails.
Without being able to note a recognized moral law that was in effect at that time which was broken you have no case at all. Had God not used extreme measures in those times all national righteousness would have been annihilated.
Since the coming of Christ and change of covenant it is completely different.
Pedophilia was condemned in the family. Sparing their lives does not equate to pedophilia. Leviticus 18:7–16; Leviticus 20:11–21
Spoils of war were considered family?
Yes, sparing their lives does not equate to pedophilia, but the point was, that it was not forbidden either.
It would help if you looked at all the evidence I provided. They were not to fornicate with or take heathen wives. If they converted they were to be a wife. That criteria forbids it. Again these were only the laws of Judaism for those times. You guys all keep making irrelevant points because that is all you have to make.
Begs the question: Why did God (via Moses) command the murder of all except for virgin girls to keep for their own? What qualities do virgin girls have that non-virgin girls do not?
Seems pretty relevant to me that God would make this very specific command.
Your moral judgment fails for lack of a broken moral code. What you established quite clearly is that Jesus NEEDED to come to this world to change it. He did and it changed the course of history. What other man of history so changed world events so much so that we organize our calendars around that event even if we use new nomenclature? Jesus moral teachings changed the world for the better when no one else could. He influenced the morality of our founders. Where is there another example of a simple carpenter with no political protection changing the course of history? He needed to be more than a carpenter to do so and He was.
Without being able to note a recognized moral that was in effect at that which was broken you have no case at all. Had God not used extreme measures in those times all national righteousness would have been annihilated.
Since the coming of Christ and change of covenant it is completely different.
[quote=Thunderstick][quote=carbon12][quote=jaguartx] The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
The God in Numbers via Moses certainly seems to not condemn pedophelia.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman
Under your system of an absolute, unchanging morality, (remember your rant again Moral Relativism) it would still be justified today.
Your blind faith has broken your morality.
The 10 commandments were the only eternal International moral code for given forever to all nations and ratified by the NT. The Jewish ceremonial and civil laws were Israeli and cancelled by Christ's death. It was nailed to cross and died with Him. The gospel fulfills the moral code beyond what the Jewish civil laws could.
Under those times it would not have been considered an atrocity by any God/god or nation.
So you are a moral relativist.
The opposite...I believe in the absolutes of what are in effect by God. What is your moral standard?
But your "god" couldn't get it right the first time?
He ordered it as He saw fit. He always portrayed a coming change when the world was ready. As much as you guys cry about ancient evidence He chose to wait till the world was more civilized and organized. Rome literally paved the world for the Gospel and the Greeks gave it a universal language.
The sons would surely stand by the faith of their fathers. It's in our male DNA to protect and avenge our heritage especially in those times.
Pure speculation.
Yep. Just like the sons of Japan and Germany avenged their fathers after WWII.......oh.....wait....They are our allies now....
And while I was in Japan, I was seduced by so many local girls, and pretty much every one of my buddies who served in Germany was seduced by the local girls.....so by the absolute moral standards set by the unchanging God of Thunderstick as set forth in the example of the genocide of the Midionites, we should wipe out Japan and Germany and kill everyone except the breeding age Virgins....
The sons would surely stand by the faith of their fathers. It's in our male DNA to protect and avenge our heritage especially in those times.
Pure speculation.
Yep. Just like the sons of Japan and Germany avenged their fathers after WWII.......oh.....wait....They are our allies now....
And while I was in Japan, I was seduced by so many local girls, and pretty much every one of my buddies who served in Germany was seduced by the local girls.....so by the absolute moral standards set by the unchanging God of Thunderstick as set forth in the example of the genocide of the Midionites, we should wipe out Japan and Germany and kill everyone except the breeding age Virgins....
God didnt tell us to do that. Man but you can get plumb fughking off the wall crazy dreaming up your boss' satanic crap to put in His mouth to try to suck others into your misery.
The sons would surely stand by the faith of their fathers. It's in our male DNA to protect and avenge our heritage especially in those times.
Pure speculation.
Yep. Just like the sons of Japan and Germany avenged their fathers after WWII.......oh.....wait....They are our allies now....
And while I was in Japan, I was seduced by so many local girls, and pretty much every one of my buddies who served in Germany was seduced by the local girls.....so by the absolute moral standards set by the unchanging God of Thunderstick as set forth in the example of the genocide of the Midionites, we should wipe out Japan and Germany and kill everyone except the breeding age Virgins....
God didnt tell us to do that. Man but you can get plumb fughking off the wall crazy dreaming up your boss' satanic crap to put in His mouth to try to suck others into your misery.
I posted the chapter, Numbers 31, straight from the King James Bible.
And here's directions from God on what to do with that HOT captive:
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Oh yeah, the captive virgin just having seen her people and her family butchered would be so very happy to marry the conquering hero.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
The God in Numbers via Moses certainly seems to not condemn pedophelia.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
Moab and Midian are the same confederate nation. Num.22:4 Their women seduced Israelite men and brought a judgment upon themselves. Num.25 As a result God called for their destruction since they were bent on destroying Israel by using sex to introduce them to false worship. But again all the nations were given warning ahead of time that they could make peace with Israel otherwise God would destroy them for their sin which had reached its fullness. Midian chose the path of seduction and depravity and reaped the promised judgment that they were forewarned about. The females below puberty were spared. Those who were spared were always given the option of following Jehovah and being included in the Jewish festivals.
You should take a few minutes to contemplate what you are actually saying.
Moses told them to keep the 32,000 Virgins alive, but kill everyone else.
So how many people did they murder? 150,000? 250,000?....and for what, a few young men did what young men do, so they killed everyone but kept all those wicked virgins for themselves?
But you don't see this as an atrocity?
Really?
The degree of denial on display by believers when it comes to bible atrocities and ancient tribal morality is mind boggling.
The death penalty ordered by God for gathering firewood on the wrong day.
Stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
''While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.'' Numbers 15:32-36.
Tell that guy about the God of Love and Tender mercy;
The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. << Psalm 145:9 >>
The death penalty ordered by God for gathering firewood on the wrong day.
Stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
''While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.'' Numbers 15:32-36.
Tell that guy about the God of Love and Tender mercy;
The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. << Psalm 145:9 >>
The Psalmist who wrote that was under the law and in another Psalm said oh how I love your law. They saw no contradiction.
The agenda is to destroy the only nation dedicated to God by inculcating in peoples minds that we are nothing more than pissants and rats and there is no reason for morals and that animalistic behavior and pedophelia are A OK. IOW, the agenda is to follow the satan they deny the existence of.
The God in Numbers via Moses certainly seems to not condemn pedophelia.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
Moab and Midian are the same confederate nation. Num.22:4 Their women seduced Israelite men and brought a judgment upon themselves. Num.25 As a result God called for their destruction since they were bent on destroying Israel by using sex to introduce them to false worship. But again all the nations were given warning ahead of time that they could make peace with Israel otherwise God would destroy them for their sin which had reached its fullness. Midian chose the path of seduction and depravity and reaped the promised judgment that they were forewarned about. The females below puberty were spared. Those who were spared were always given the option of following Jehovah and being included in the Jewish festivals.
You should take a few minutes to contemplate what you are actually saying.
Moses told them to keep the 32,000 Virgins alive, but kill everyone else.
So how many people did they murder? 150,000? 250,000?....and for what, a few young men did what young men do, so they killed everyone but kept all those wicked virgins for themselves?
But you don't see this as an atrocity?
Really?
The degree of denial on display by believers when it comes to bible atrocities and ancient tribal morality is mind boggling.
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
And here's directions from God on what to do with that HOT captive:
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Oh yeah, the captive virgin just having seen her people and her family butchered would be so very happy to marry the conquering hero.
In warfare etiquette of those days such an offer of status was very unusual. Typically they became sex slaves in the morality of other nations. The inability of you guys to understand ancient times is rather stark. And you act as though we are talking about whether it is right today. You guys wouldn't have lasted very long back then in any culture.
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction.
The sons would surely stand by the faith of their fathers. It's in our male DNA to protect and avenge our heritage especially in those times.
Pure speculation.
Yep. Just like the sons of Japan and Germany avenged their fathers after WWII.......oh.....wait....They are our allies now....
And while I was in Japan, I was seduced by so many local girls, and pretty much every one of my buddies who served in Germany was seduced by the local girls.....so by the absolute moral standards set by the unchanging God of Thunderstick as set forth in the example of the genocide of the Midionites, we should wipe out Japan and Germany and kill everyone except the breeding age Virgins....
God didnt tell us to do that. Man but you can get plumb fughking off the wall crazy dreaming up your boss' satanic crap to put in His mouth to try to suck others into your misery.
I posted the chapter, Numbers 31, straight from the King James Bible.
The example is very clear.
That same Bible explains two covenants something the western nations have known for years but which is being lost on the new breed of biblically illiterate liberals. Our founders understood this concept quite well. As Roger Williams pointed out ...wherever Christian's were persecuting others they were justifying it under the OT and obsolete covenant. The American experience focused their moral understanding on the universal morality of the 10 commandments and the morals of Jesus. Perhaps a primer in American moral thinking would be helpful.
I find it very interesting to note the alleged distress over OT morality in the Jewish culture, but no distress over a worse morality in the surrounding nations of that time, and no distress over the current moral decline being promoted by these same skeptics in our time. The logical inconsistency is very evident.
I find it very interesting to note the alleged distress over OT morality in the Jewish culture, but no distress over a worse morality in the surrounding nations of that time, and no distress over the current moral decline being promoted by these same skeptics in our time. The logical inconsistency is very evident.
What is interesting is the lack of distress towards the time dependent morality of a timeless God. That is the very evident inconsistency.
I find it very interesting to note the alleged distress over OT morality in the Jewish culture, but no distress over a worse morality in the surrounding nations of that time, and no distress over the current moral decline being promoted by these same skeptics in our time. The logical inconsistency is very evident.
In my view, you have pretty much right in the money with your responses.
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
One clear example of misguided thinking is this “gathering of sticks” issue. The stick gather is not judged for the mere act of gathering wood, he is judged for clearly and willfully disobeying God. If you will, “sticking his finger up at God.”
The seagulls want to continue in their sin, continue in their rebellion and continue to behave as it they will not be held accountable.
I have heard many versions of the “God failed to convince me” excuse over the years.
Anyway, one clear teaching that the seagulls apparently don’t see is that God....the Law.... does not tolerate sin. Sin is not tolerated in heaven. This should give them a sobering thought. Apparently it does not. Tragic.
They will not see the light until..... now or later..... until they feel the heat.
Oh, also, the seagulls are apparently pacifists. They do not believe in survival by way of war. They should study history. When someone harms you or your children, retaliatory responses are appropriate.
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
I'm wondering if we will get any hand-wringing over the Assyrian brutality of war in honor to their gods. While Israel's occupation campaign was limited to a specific time and geographical boundaries the Assyrians plundered with impunity. Let the moral outrage begin with the Assyrians
According to the narrative representations on these reliefs, the Assyrians never lost a battle. Indeed, no Assyrian soldier is ever shown wounded or killed. The benevolence of the gods is always bestowed on the Assyrian king and his troops. Like the official written records, the scenes and figures are selected and arranged to record the king’s heroic deeds and to describe him as “beloved of the gods”: “The king, who acts with the support of the great gods his lords and has conquered all lands, gained dominion over all highlands and received their tribute, captures of hostages, he who is victorious over all countries.” † The inscriptions and the pictorial evidence both provide detailed information regarding the Assyrian treatment of conquered peoples, their armies and their rulers. In his official royal inscriptions, Ashurnasirpal II calls himself the “trampler of all enemies … who defeated all his enemies [and] hung the corpses of his enemies on posts.” † The treatment of captured enemies often depended on their readiness to submit themselves to the will of the Assyrian king: “The nobles [and] elders of the city came out to me to save their lives. They seized my feet and said: ‘If it pleases you, kill! If it pleases you, spare! If it pleases you, do what you will!’” † In one case when a city resisted as long as possible instead of immediately submitting, Ashurnasirpal proudly records his punishment:
Assyrian headhunters gather their trophies. In a relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, two scribes, standing side by side at right, record the number of the enemy slain in a campaign in southern Mesopotamia. Heads lie in a heap at their feet. The foreground scribe uses pen and ink on a leather scroll; the other scribe writes with a stylus on a hinged writing-board coated with wax.
“I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me [and] draped their skins over the pile [of corpses]; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile … I flayed many right through my land [and] draped their skins over the walls.” † The account was probably intended not only to describe what had happened, but also to frighten anyone who might dare to resist. To suppress his enemies was the king’s divine task. Supported by the gods, he always had to be victorious in battle and to punish disobedient people: “I felled 50 of their fighting men with the sword, burnt 200 captives from them, [and] defeated in a battle on the plain 332 troops. … With their blood I dyed the mountain red like red wool, [and] the rest of them the ravines [and] torrents of the mountain swallowed. I carried off captives [and] possessions from them. I cut off the heads of their fighters [and] built [therewith] a tower before their city. I burnt their adolescent boys [and] girls.” † A description of another conquest is even worse: “In strife and conflict I besieged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting men with the sword … I captured many troops alive: I cut off of some their arms [and] hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of many troops. I made one pile of the living [and] one of heads. I hung their heads on trees around the city.” †
How cruel were the New Assyrian Kings? What were there reasons? And finally, what were the effects of such cruelty they exemplified?
Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian gave detail of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they pay a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut of the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang in the trees around the city.
Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. Shalmaneser III had 20,500 enemy soldiers killed by arrow fire. Rebelling cities were “dug up” and burned with fire. Usually, surrounding towns of the unlucky city also suffered the same fate. Shalmaneser III also illustrated in his relief and carvings how he burned the children of defeated cities. Moreover, he ordered the beheading of the soldiers of disloyal cities and made a pyramid from the heads at the gates of the defeated cities. One time, after he defeated the rebelling city of Arzaskhu, he fastened people alive in the pyramids of heads alongside with pole, which had also alive captured soldiers dangling. https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
What happened to them?
Non participants in the kingdom of God. By their own choices.
Non participants now and then forever if they do not seek God......
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
What happened to them?
Non participants in the kingdom of God. By their own choices.
Non participants now and then forever if they do not seek God......
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
What happened to them?
Non participants in the kingdom of God. By their own choices.
Non participants now and then forever if they do not seek God......
What is so unwell about that?
Pretty obvious.
You either dumb as a box of rocks or simply trolling.
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction.
Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique.
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction.
Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique.
What is logically indefensible is giving faith to a putative omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that required an overhaul of his testament with a new testament. A real perfect God would have gotten it right the first time.
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
What happened to them?
Non participants in the kingdom of God. By their own choices.
Non participants now and then forever if they do not seek God......
What is so unwell about that?
Pretty obvious.
You either dumb as a box of rocks or simply trolling.
Show how it went unwell with all the people that were faithful to other gods and specifically how it would have turned out better if they believed as you do.
I'm wondering if we will get any hand-wringing over the Assyrian brutality of war in honor to their gods. While Israel's occupation campaign was limited to a specific time and geographical boundaries the Assyrians plundered with impunity. Let the moral outrage begin with the Assyrians
According to the narrative representations on these reliefs, the Assyrians never lost a battle. Indeed, no Assyrian soldier is ever shown wounded or killed. The benevolence of the gods is always bestowed on the Assyrian king and his troops. Like the official written records, the scenes and figures are selected and arranged to record the king’s heroic deeds and to describe him as “beloved of the gods”: “The king, who acts with the support of the great gods his lords and has conquered all lands, gained dominion over all highlands and received their tribute, captures of hostages, he who is victorious over all countries.” † The inscriptions and the pictorial evidence both provide detailed information regarding the Assyrian treatment of conquered peoples, their armies and their rulers. In his official royal inscriptions, Ashurnasirpal II calls himself the “trampler of all enemies … who defeated all his enemies [and] hung the corpses of his enemies on posts.” † The treatment of captured enemies often depended on their readiness to submit themselves to the will of the Assyrian king: “The nobles [and] elders of the city came out to me to save their lives. They seized my feet and said: ‘If it pleases you, kill! If it pleases you, spare! If it pleases you, do what you will!’” † In one case when a city resisted as long as possible instead of immediately submitting, Ashurnasirpal proudly records his punishment:
Assyrian headhunters gather their trophies. In a relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, two scribes, standing side by side at right, record the number of the enemy slain in a campaign in southern Mesopotamia. Heads lie in a heap at their feet. The foreground scribe uses pen and ink on a leather scroll; the other scribe writes with a stylus on a hinged writing-board coated with wax.
“I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me [and] draped their skins over the pile [of corpses]; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile … I flayed many right through my land [and] draped their skins over the walls.” † The account was probably intended not only to describe what had happened, but also to frighten anyone who might dare to resist. To suppress his enemies was the king’s divine task. Supported by the gods, he always had to be victorious in battle and to punish disobedient people: “I felled 50 of their fighting men with the sword, burnt 200 captives from them, [and] defeated in a battle on the plain 332 troops. … With their blood I dyed the mountain red like red wool, [and] the rest of them the ravines [and] torrents of the mountain swallowed. I carried off captives [and] possessions from them. I cut off the heads of their fighters [and] built [therewith] a tower before their city. I burnt their adolescent boys [and] girls.” † A description of another conquest is even worse: “In strife and conflict I besieged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting men with the sword … I captured many troops alive: I cut off of some their arms [and] hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of many troops. I made one pile of the living [and] one of heads. I hung their heads on trees around the city.” †
How cruel were the New Assyrian Kings? What were there reasons? And finally, what were the effects of such cruelty they exemplified?
Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian gave detail of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they pay a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut of the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang in the trees around the city.
Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. Shalmaneser III had 20,500 enemy soldiers killed by arrow fire. Rebelling cities were “dug up” and burned with fire. Usually, surrounding towns of the unlucky city also suffered the same fate. Shalmaneser III also illustrated in his relief and carvings how he burned the children of defeated cities. Moreover, he ordered the beheading of the soldiers of disloyal cities and made a pyramid from the heads at the gates of the defeated cities. One time, after he defeated the rebelling city of Arzaskhu, he fastened people alive in the pyramids of heads alongside with pole, which had also alive captured soldiers dangling. https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction.
Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique.
What is logically indefensible is giving faith to a putative omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that required an overhaul of his testament with a new testament. A real perfect God would have gotten right the first time.
Everything was originally created perfect and then man sinned. The sinful human nature is undeniably present in the selfish nature of a child.The problem is not God but with what man has done with their opportunities and thus God has incrementally brought the human race to the point where they could receive His full revelation. With the human race so depraved God started with a small nation and miraculously preserved it through all odds. He used extreme measures because the pagan world at that time was very brutal. By introducing laws that met the times He was able to work with mankind to bring them to His full revelation. Had Jesus appeared in the patriarchal age there would have no way to spread it rapidly through the world so that His death and resurrection could be investigated. Working through human history God established a nation, then when that nation dispersed His prophecies were also spread before they could be fulfilled. The Greeks brought a common language and the Romans a network of roads. This introduced the advent of Christ.
Show how it went unwell with all the people that were faithful to other gods and specifically how it would have turned out better if they believed as you do.
That is your claim.
If it is so obvious, prove it.....logically.
Rather easy to prove ... the Jews and their book survived while the other nations and races of ancient history have largely disappeared and their beliefs are not even debated today like are with the Jewish laws..
I'm wondering if we will get any hand-wringing over the Assyrian brutality of war in honor to their gods. While Israel's occupation campaign was limited to a specific time and geographical boundaries the Assyrians plundered with impunity. Let the moral outrage begin with the Assyrians
According to the narrative representations on these reliefs, the Assyrians never lost a battle. Indeed, no Assyrian soldier is ever shown wounded or killed. The benevolence of the gods is always bestowed on the Assyrian king and his troops. Like the official written records, the scenes and figures are selected and arranged to record the king’s heroic deeds and to describe him as “beloved of the gods”: “The king, who acts with the support of the great gods his lords and has conquered all lands, gained dominion over all highlands and received their tribute, captures of hostages, he who is victorious over all countries.” † The inscriptions and the pictorial evidence both provide detailed information regarding the Assyrian treatment of conquered peoples, their armies and their rulers. In his official royal inscriptions, Ashurnasirpal II calls himself the “trampler of all enemies … who defeated all his enemies [and] hung the corpses of his enemies on posts.” † The treatment of captured enemies often depended on their readiness to submit themselves to the will of the Assyrian king: “The nobles [and] elders of the city came out to me to save their lives. They seized my feet and said: ‘If it pleases you, kill! If it pleases you, spare! If it pleases you, do what you will!’” † In one case when a city resisted as long as possible instead of immediately submitting, Ashurnasirpal proudly records his punishment:
Assyrian headhunters gather their trophies. In a relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, two scribes, standing side by side at right, record the number of the enemy slain in a campaign in southern Mesopotamia. Heads lie in a heap at their feet. The foreground scribe uses pen and ink on a leather scroll; the other scribe writes with a stylus on a hinged writing-board coated with wax.
“I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me [and] draped their skins over the pile [of corpses]; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile … I flayed many right through my land [and] draped their skins over the walls.” † The account was probably intended not only to describe what had happened, but also to frighten anyone who might dare to resist. To suppress his enemies was the king’s divine task. Supported by the gods, he always had to be victorious in battle and to punish disobedient people: “I felled 50 of their fighting men with the sword, burnt 200 captives from them, [and] defeated in a battle on the plain 332 troops. … With their blood I dyed the mountain red like red wool, [and] the rest of them the ravines [and] torrents of the mountain swallowed. I carried off captives [and] possessions from them. I cut off the heads of their fighters [and] built [therewith] a tower before their city. I burnt their adolescent boys [and] girls.” † A description of another conquest is even worse: “In strife and conflict I besieged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting men with the sword … I captured many troops alive: I cut off of some their arms [and] hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of many troops. I made one pile of the living [and] one of heads. I hung their heads on trees around the city.” †
How cruel were the New Assyrian Kings? What were there reasons? And finally, what were the effects of such cruelty they exemplified?
Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian gave detail of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they pay a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut of the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang in the trees around the city.
Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. Shalmaneser III had 20,500 enemy soldiers killed by arrow fire. Rebelling cities were “dug up” and burned with fire. Usually, surrounding towns of the unlucky city also suffered the same fate. Shalmaneser III also illustrated in his relief and carvings how he burned the children of defeated cities. Moreover, he ordered the beheading of the soldiers of disloyal cities and made a pyramid from the heads at the gates of the defeated cities. One time, after he defeated the rebelling city of Arzaskhu, he fastened people alive in the pyramids of heads alongside with pole, which had also alive captured soldiers dangling. https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html
All that verbiage. Impressive.
Is there a point?
Yup it was noted at the outset--where is the moral outrage over the Assyrian gods--no one even takes them seriously today but here we are debating the Bible. This debate itself is proof that Bible stands well above all other attempts by BC man to formulate morals, religion, irreligion, philosophy or skepticism.
Show how it went unwell with all the people that were faithful to other gods and specifically how it would have turned out better if they believed as you do.
That is your claim.
If it is so obvious, prove it.....logically.
Rather easy to prove ... the Jews and their book survived while the other nations and races of ancient history have largely disappeared and their beliefs are not even debated today like are with the Jewish laws..
So a better fate is just being debated about afterwards. Well alrighty then.
I guess believing in Allah would be just as dandy if survival and being debated about is the end fate.
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction.
Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique.
What is logically indefensible is giving faith to a putative omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that required an overhaul of his testament with a new testament. A real perfect God would have gotten right the first time.
Everything was originally created perfect and then man sinned. The sinful human nature is undeniably present in the selfish nature of a child.The problem is not God but with what man has done with their opportunities and thus God has incrementally brought the human race to the point where they could receive His full revelation. With the human race so depraved God started with a small nation and miraculously preserved it through all odds. He used extreme measures because the pagan world at that time was very brutal. By introducing laws that met the times He was able to work with mankind to bring them to His full revelation. Had Jesus appeared in the patriarchal age there would have no way to spread it rapidly through the world so that His death and resurrection could be investigated. Working through human history God established a nation, then when that nation dispersed His prophecies were also spread before they could be fulfilled. The Greeks brought a common language and the Romans a network of roads. This introduced the advent of Christ.
Whoa!
What you just said is: man was able to derail God's Original Perfect Plan pretty much at the very onset. Does not say much about where God got his omniscience.
I'm wondering if we will get any hand-wringing over the Assyrian brutality of war in honor to their gods. While Israel's occupation campaign was limited to a specific time and geographical boundaries the Assyrians plundered with impunity. Let the moral outrage begin with the Assyrians
According to the narrative representations on these reliefs, the Assyrians never lost a battle. Indeed, no Assyrian soldier is ever shown wounded or killed. The benevolence of the gods is always bestowed on the Assyrian king and his troops. Like the official written records, the scenes and figures are selected and arranged to record the king’s heroic deeds and to describe him as “beloved of the gods”: “The king, who acts with the support of the great gods his lords and has conquered all lands, gained dominion over all highlands and received their tribute, captures of hostages, he who is victorious over all countries.” † The inscriptions and the pictorial evidence both provide detailed information regarding the Assyrian treatment of conquered peoples, their armies and their rulers. In his official royal inscriptions, Ashurnasirpal II calls himself the “trampler of all enemies … who defeated all his enemies [and] hung the corpses of his enemies on posts.” † The treatment of captured enemies often depended on their readiness to submit themselves to the will of the Assyrian king: “The nobles [and] elders of the city came out to me to save their lives. They seized my feet and said: ‘If it pleases you, kill! If it pleases you, spare! If it pleases you, do what you will!’” † In one case when a city resisted as long as possible instead of immediately submitting, Ashurnasirpal proudly records his punishment:
Assyrian headhunters gather their trophies. In a relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, two scribes, standing side by side at right, record the number of the enemy slain in a campaign in southern Mesopotamia. Heads lie in a heap at their feet. The foreground scribe uses pen and ink on a leather scroll; the other scribe writes with a stylus on a hinged writing-board coated with wax.
“I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me [and] draped their skins over the pile [of corpses]; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile … I flayed many right through my land [and] draped their skins over the walls.” † The account was probably intended not only to describe what had happened, but also to frighten anyone who might dare to resist. To suppress his enemies was the king’s divine task. Supported by the gods, he always had to be victorious in battle and to punish disobedient people: “I felled 50 of their fighting men with the sword, burnt 200 captives from them, [and] defeated in a battle on the plain 332 troops. … With their blood I dyed the mountain red like red wool, [and] the rest of them the ravines [and] torrents of the mountain swallowed. I carried off captives [and] possessions from them. I cut off the heads of their fighters [and] built [therewith] a tower before their city. I burnt their adolescent boys [and] girls.” † A description of another conquest is even worse: “In strife and conflict I besieged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting men with the sword … I captured many troops alive: I cut off of some their arms [and] hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of many troops. I made one pile of the living [and] one of heads. I hung their heads on trees around the city.” †
How cruel were the New Assyrian Kings? What were there reasons? And finally, what were the effects of such cruelty they exemplified?
Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian gave detail of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they pay a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut of the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang in the trees around the city.
Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. Shalmaneser III had 20,500 enemy soldiers killed by arrow fire. Rebelling cities were “dug up” and burned with fire. Usually, surrounding towns of the unlucky city also suffered the same fate. Shalmaneser III also illustrated in his relief and carvings how he burned the children of defeated cities. Moreover, he ordered the beheading of the soldiers of disloyal cities and made a pyramid from the heads at the gates of the defeated cities. One time, after he defeated the rebelling city of Arzaskhu, he fastened people alive in the pyramids of heads alongside with pole, which had also alive captured soldiers dangling. https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html
All that verbiage. Impressive.
Is there a point?
Yup it was noted at the outset--where is the moral outrage over the Assyrian gods--no one even takes them seriously today but here we are debating the Bible. This debate itself is proof that Bible stands well above all other attempts by BC man to formulate morals, religion, irreligion, philosophy or skepticism.
If that is your point, how is it germane to the discussion of our perception of God's inconsistent morality?
What you just said is: man was able to derail God's Original Perfect Plan pretty much at the very onset. Does not say much about where God got his omniscience.
It should not come as a surprise that God sovereignly chose to let man be responsible for the world into which they were placed ... if you read the book.
Yup it was noted at the outset--where is the moral outrage over the Assyrian gods--no one even takes them seriously today but here we are debating the Bible. This debate itself is proof that Bible stands well above all other attempts by BC man to formulate morals, religion, irreligion, philosophy or skepticism.
Quote
If that is your point, how is it germane to the discussion of our perception of God's inconsistent morality?
That wasn't the original point. You guys were expressing moral outrage over the moral behavior of God and Israel--I was pointing out that other nations were worse and yet you showed no moral outrage. It simply verifies your prejudice and unwillingness to consistently evaluate everything on the basis of those times.
What you just said is: man was able to derail God's Original Perfect Plan pretty much at the very onset. Does not say much about where God got his omniscience.
It should not come as a surprise that God sovereignly chose to let man be responsible for the world into which they were placed ... .
So God made a perfect plan, then let man muck it up. God then had to go to a really convoluted Plan B.
Yup it was noted at the outset--where is the moral outrage over the Assyrian gods--no one even takes them seriously today but here we are debating the Bible. This debate itself is proof that Bible stands well above all other attempts by BC man to formulate morals, religion, irreligion, philosophy or skepticism.
Quote
If that is your point, how is it germane to the discussion of our perception of God's inconsistent morality?
That wasn't the original point. You guys were expressing moral outrage over the moral behavior of God and Israel--I was pointing out that other nations were worse and yet you showed no moral outrage. It simply verifies your prejudice and unwillingness to consistently evaluate everything on the basis of those times.
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction.
Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique.
You are dead wrong on everything you have posted. And too blind to understand.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
So are you acknowledging that you are good at mucking things up?
Going ad hominem?
No, it is asking for honesty in realizing that mankind is good at mucking things up and has a history of doing so. God does not always intervene to shield us from the circumstances of our choices when that happens, but He always has a way to see that His ultimate ends are accomplished.
It was also a Spanish Inquisition thing where other religions such as the Jews were forced to convert to Christianity. So from the early 4th Century up to the early 1500's other religions were persecuted by Christians. [/quote] No, there was persecution long after that. You do realize these times were harsh, particularly for those not of noble stature. And the nobles and the "church" was often totally corrupt, liars and hypocrites, and ruthless.
America became the host for all kinds of refugee's from religious persecution both long before the Revolutionary War establishing America and after.
Now we again see the evidences of Christian persecution.
God does not always intervene to shield us from the circumstances of our choices.
When has God ever intervened?
POTUS Election, 2016.
He interviened for those with ears when He said, "....Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear. "
Your kind roars like the mighty ocean which can not breach the sandy beach.
God does not always intervene to shield us from the circumstances of our choices.
When has God ever intervened?
POTUS Election, 2016.
He interviened for those with ears when He said, "....Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear. "
Your kind roars like the mighty ocean which can not breach the sandy beach.
So you are claiming that supernatural monkey wrenching was necessary for a Trump presidency?
Now that is a sure sign of low T.
Write yourself an extra large script and get er done, Eyeball.
Speak for yourself. One mans meat is anothers poison... Themen will become as women. Good will become evil. Israel will regain their homeland and become a nation. The Temple will be rebuilt. Their enemies will try to drive them into the sea. They will be carried to safety as if by the wings of an eagle.
Popgun farts are deaf and blind with scales on their eyes, yet they would tell me 2 and 2 make 3.
Speak for yourself. One mans meat is anothers poison... Themen will become as women. Good will become evil. Israel will regain their homeland and become a nation. The Temple will be rebuilt. Their enemies will try to drive them into the sea. They will be carried to safety as if by the wings of an eagle.
Popgun farts are deaf and blind with scales on their eyes, yet they would tell me 2 and 2 make 3.
Must be 5 O'clock somewhere.
Can always tell. That is when the name calling and insults start.
You are dead wrong on everything you have posted. And too blind to understand.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
[/quote]
this is an illustration of the point that so many who walk among us can't or won't understand.
there was a complete shift in the god of the old testament versus the god of the new testament.
it's been forever difficult to fuse the old testament to the new testament.
when god failed in his implementation of rules in the old testament, he re-invented himself and began a new tact in the new testament.
but we can tell the tale anyway we wish, or grew up to believe in. and now the muslims are adding their version of the story to the cosmos.
God does not always intervene to shield us from the circumstances of our choices.
When has God ever intervened?
POTUS Election, 2016.
He interviened for those with ears when He said, "....Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear. "
Your kind roars like the mighty ocean which can not breach the sandy beach.
So you are claiming that supernatural monkey wrenching was necessary for a Trump presidency?
Now that is a sure sign of low T.
Write yourself an extra large script and get er done, Eyeball.
lol. i ain't heert tell of that phrase in a coon's age. monkey wrenching lives on! just watch out for the carbide teeth flying through the roof! lol.
You are dead wrong on everything you have posted. And too blind to understand.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
this is an illustration of the point that so many who walk among us can't or won't understand.
there was a complete shift in the god of the old testament versus the god of the new testament.
it's been forever difficult to fuse the old testament to the new testament.
when god failed in his implementation of rules in the old testament, he re-invented himself and began a new tact in the new testament.
but we can tell the tale anyway we wish, or grew up to believe in. and now the muslims are adding their version of the story to the cosmos. [/quote]
As I tried to point out Thomas Jefferson had the same problems with the Bible, yet he still believed in God, the Creator.
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820.
Bowsinger posted: "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820.
---------------
And speaking of contradictions, Thomas Jefferson penned "all men are created equal" but kept many slaves until the day he died.
Mr. Contradiction also wrote about personal liberty: "Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will."
As I tried to point out Thomas Jefferson had the same problems with the Bible, yet he still believed in God, the Creator.
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820.
Neither God nor we are obligated to provide answers that suit your preferences nor do we recognize a need for any further reconciliation. The truth does not need to be palatable to liberals, it only needs to be true. Unless you are omniscient you cannot possibly judge a cosmic plan that none of us can fully comprehend with our finite minds. As to Jefferson, while I respect him in many ways, his thoughts on the Bible were in the minority among the founders--which is why his Bible is nothing more than a museum relic and the real one is read all over the world without a knowledge that pen-knifed personalized Jeffersonian version exists that carries no authority.
p.s. In cutting with a pen knife how does one exactly know which portions to cut so that both sides of the page are infallibly corrected--unless a person has an infallible mind and possesses what he says does not exist in the Bible.
Bowsinger posted: "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820.
---------------
And speaking of contradictions, Thomas Jefferson penned "all men are created equal" but kept many slaves until the day he died.
Mr. Contradiction also wrote about personal liberty: "Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will."
Did Jefferson claim perfection?
Making a contradiction comparison of Jefferson v.s. God (who does claim perfection) is silly at best.
As I tried to point out Thomas Jefferson had the same problems with the Bible, yet he still believed in God, the Creator.
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820.
Neither God nor we are obligated to provide answers that suit your preferences nor do we recognize a need for any further reconciliation. The truth does not need to be palatable to liberals, it only needs to be true. Unless you are omniscient you cannot possibly judge a cosmic plan that none of us can fully comprehend with our finite minds. As to Jefferson, while I respect him in many ways, his thoughts on the Bible were in the minority among the founders--which is why his Bible is nothing more than a museum relic and the real one is read all over the world without a knowledge that pen-knifed personalized Jeffersonian version exists that carries no authority.
p.s. In cutting with a pen knife how does one exactly know which portions to cut so that both sides of the page are infallibly corrected--unless a person has an infallible mind and possesses what he says does not exist in the Bible.
You are obligated to provide answers that suit our preferences if you want to convince us of the correctness of your position. Otherwise, why are you here wasting time?
Furthermore Thomas Jefferson's butcher job on the Bible did not resolve any alleged contradictions between the morals of the Old Testament and the morals of Jesus Christ. In that sense the Bible that he created is worthless.
As I tried to point out Thomas Jefferson had the same problems with the Bible, yet he still believed in God, the Creator.
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820.
Neither God nor we are obligated to provide answers that suit your preferences nor do we recognize a need for any further reconciliation. The truth does not need to be palatable to liberals, it only needs to be true. Unless you are omniscient you cannot possibly judge a cosmic plan that none of us can fully comprehend with our finite minds. As to Jefferson, while I respect him in many ways, his thoughts on the Bible were in the minority among the founders--which is why his Bible is nothing more than a museum relic and the real one is read all over the world without a knowledge that pen-knifed personalized Jeffersonian version exists that carries no authority.
p.s. In cutting with a pen knife how does one exactly know which portions to cut so that both sides of the page are infallibly corrected--unless a person has an infallible mind and possesses what he says does not exist in the Bible.
You are obligated to provide answers that suit our preferences if you want to convince us of the correctness of your position. Otherwise, why are you here wasting time?
We are not trying to present truth in order for you to find it acceptable. We Proclaim truth because that is the only thing that will save mankind. There are also others who are reading who have the opportunity to hear the truth and to see how skepticism has no answers . Again our responsibility is to proclaim the truth and not to make decisions for you. If we water down the truth to make it palatable do a mind of unbelief what we offered would be of no value.
Furthermore Thomas Jefferson's butcher job on the Bible did not resolve any alleged contradictions between the morals of the Old Testament and the morals of Jesus Christ. In that sense the Bible that he created is worthless.
Since you have failed to resolve the Biblical contradictions we have pointed out, are your posts here also worthless? In that sense of course.
As I tried to point out Thomas Jefferson had the same problems with the Bible, yet he still believed in God, the Creator.
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820.
Neither God nor we are obligated to provide answers that suit your preferences nor do we recognize a need for any further reconciliation. The truth does not need to be palatable to liberals, it only needs to be true. Unless you are omniscient you cannot possibly judge a cosmic plan that none of us can fully comprehend with our finite minds. As to Jefferson, while I respect him in many ways, his thoughts on the Bible were in the minority among the founders--which is why his Bible is nothing more than a museum relic and the real one is read all over the world without a knowledge that pen-knifed personalized Jeffersonian version exists that carries no authority.
p.s. In cutting with a pen knife how does one exactly know which portions to cut so that both sides of the page are infallibly corrected--unless a person has an infallible mind and possesses what he says does not exist in the Bible.
You are obligated to provide answers that suit our preferences if you want to convince us of the correctness of your position. Otherwise, why are you here wasting time?
We are not trying to present truth in order for you to find it acceptable. We Proclaim truth because that is the only thing that will save mankind. There are also others who are reading who have the opportunity to hear the truth and to see how skepticism has no answers . Again our responsibility is to proclaim the truth and not to make decisions for you. If we water down the truth to make it palatable do a mind of unbelief what we offered would be of no value.
What good is your proclaimed truth if it withers when examined skeptically and fails on it's face ?
The contradictions which you allege in my opinion, outside of my faith, and trying to look at it objectively from an intellectual point of view, have no merit. To me they are contrived and there is more straining of logic to present the objection then there is to make the obvious reconciliation.
Having said all that I do want you to know that I have done my personal best with good intentions and sincere efforts to answer your questions according to the rules of logic and the scriptures. What I am saying is I will not change the message in order to make it more acceptable to someone from your point of view. That is a choice that you must make and if I have done my job it now lies between you and God as to how the matter will be settled.
The contradictions which you allege in my opinion, outside of my faith, and trying to look at it objectively from an intellectual point of view, have no merit. To me they are contrived and there is more straining of logic to present the objection then there is to make the obvious reconciliation.
Having said all that I do want you to know that I have done my personal best with good intentions and sincere efforts to answer your questions according to the rules of logic and the scriptures. What I am saying is I will not change the message in order to make it more acceptable to someone from your point of view. That is a choice that you must make and if I have done my job it now lies between you and God as to how the matter will be settled.
Furthermore Thomas Jefferson's butcher job on the Bible did not resolve any alleged contradictions between the morals of the Old Testament and the morals of Jesus Christ. In that sense the Bible that he created is worthless.
Since you have failed to resolve the Biblical contradictions we have pointed out, are your posts here also worthless? In that sense of course.
Jefferson claimed he improved the bible. Took a lot of superstition out of it. His quotes about that make him a lot smarter than the quotes of those who say he butchered the bible.
I find it very interesting to note the alleged distress over OT morality in the Jewish culture, but no distress over a worse morality in the surrounding nations of that time, and no distress over the current moral decline being promoted by these same skeptics in our time. The logical inconsistency is very evident.
In my view, you have pretty much right in the money with your responses.
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
One clear example of misguided thinking is this “gathering of sticks” issue. The stick gather is not judged for the mere act of gathering wood, he is judged for clearly and willfully disobeying God. If you will, “sticking his finger up at God.”
The seagulls want to continue in their sin, continue in their rebellion and continue to behave as it they will not be held accountable.
I have heard many versions of the “God failed to convince me” excuse over the years.
Anyway, one clear teaching that the seagulls apparently don’t see is that God....the Law.... does not tolerate sin. Sin is not tolerated in heaven. This should give them a sobering thought. Apparently it does not. Tragic.
They will not see the light until..... now or later..... until they feel the heat.
Oh, also, the seagulls are apparently pacifists. They do not believe in survival by way of war. They should study history. When someone harms you or your children, retaliatory responses are appropriate.
Sour grapes. We are not talking about the morality of tribal societies at that time, or at any time. The issue is with the morality of God as described in the bible, which surprise, surprise, is no better than the morals of the people living in the time of writing.
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
The seagulls want to continue in their sin, continue in their rebellion ..
[re:Romans] Paul indicated it was beyond his human ability to discontinue sinning. No matter how much he wanted to stop. he was unavoidably a transgressor enslaved/ bound to a sinful life.
nobody that walks the earth is any better than Paul in that regard.
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
there was a complete shift in the god of the old testament versus the god of the new testament...
..when god failed in his implementation of rules in the old testament, he re-invented himself and began a new tact in the new testament.
One attracts more bees with honey than lemons.
A new millennia sympathetic Jesus posterboy front man [vs] his faceless patriarchal arbitrary revengeful blood thirsty autocrat old man.
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
Everything was originally created perfect and then man sinned. The sinful human nature is undeniably present in the selfish nature of a child. The problem is not God but with what man has done with their opportunities ...
Whoa!
What you just said is: man was able to derail God's Original Perfect Plan pretty much at the very onset. Does not say much about where God got his omniscience.
God purposely set up Adam & Eve for the Fall. iF God didn't know Adam Eve were going to take the bait God purposely put before them , then he can't be all knowing. iF he is all knowing then Adam & Eve were only role playing/following Gods script of what was divinely pre-ordained.
if Adam + Eve (and Judas) were really able to do what they wanted without Gods plan dictating, then it would have risked the whole BIble narrative falling apart.
Originally Posted by carbon12
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
God does not always intervene to shield us from the circumstances of our choices.
When has God ever intervened?
Would be interesting to hear where CF christians have personally witnessed instances where God has intervened and how they have verified such to be the case.
wE do have a few on the CF who claim to have been touched by God, but nothing that counts as anything more than delusion-wishful thinking on their part.....We used to find those types typically on street corners clutching a Bible and causing noise pollution, now technology allows them to infiltrate the internet - social media.
That is not the issue. Satan is the issue. Its the issue with you because satan has you. If it werent that, it would be something else.
Like a lieberal, you can see imperfection in anything. You find thatbwhich you seek.
Satan is described as doing the will of God in the book of Job, acting against Job according to the instructions of God for the sake of wager...a wager that an omniscient God cannot help but win.
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
That was the point which was being made by the person I responded to. As soon as the point is answered you say it wasn't the point.
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
What standards do you have and where can I find them recorded?
That is not the issue. Satan is the issue. Its the issue with you because satan has you. If it werent that, it would be something else.
Like a lieberal, you can see imperfection in anything. You find thatbwhich you seek.
Satan is described as doing the will of God in the book of Job, acting against Job according to the instructions of God for the sake of wager...a wager that an omniscient God cannot help but win.
And?
Did God or Satan win? Ride the losing side for all i care.
You think youre hot stuff. His ways are above ours. How many did God save by His actions? How many are you saving? How many is Satan saving?
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
What standards do you have and where can I find them recorded?
You can find them in the new testament, I have quoted verses that refer to God in terms of love and descriptions of the nature of love. Descriptions that contradict the actions of God as described in OT.
He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace.
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
That was the point which was being made by the person I responded to. As soon as the point is answered you say it wasn't the point.
Just answering is not the same as offering an actual rebuttal using logic, reason and evidence
The 'answers' come in the form of dismissals and denials rather than reasoned arguments.
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
What standards do you have and where can I find them recorded?
You can find them in the new testament, I have quoted verses that refer to God in terms of love and descriptions of the nature of love. Descriptions that contradict the actions of God as described in OT.
So, your interpretation of love is different from His. So is your idea of good, evil, right, wrong, life and death. Whats new?
Oh, i get it. He better toe your line. Good luck, butter cup. Im sure for you, Satan will measure up.
That is not the issue. Satan is the issue. Its the issue with you because satan has you. If it werent that, it would be something else.
Like a lieberal, you can see imperfection in anything. You find thatbwhich you seek.
The imperfections and contradictions are there for anyone to see. The problems were recognized a long time ago, and the reason why the Gnostics demoted the God of the bible to a lower status, to that of a local godling, an evil demiurge.
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
What standards do you have and where can I find them recorded?
You can find them in the new testament, I have quoted verses that refer to God in terms of love and descriptions of the nature of love. Descriptions that contradict the actions of God as described in OT.
So, your interpretation of love is different from His. So is your idea of good, evil, right, wrong, life and death. Whats new?
Oh, i get it. He better toe your line. Good luck, butter cup. Im sure for you, Satan will measure up.
It's not my interpretation of love I am talking about, but what the bible itself describes...did you miss the quotes I posted?
That is not the issue. Satan is the issue. Its the issue with you because satan has you. If it werent that, it would be something else.
Like a lieberal, you can see imperfection in anything. You find thatbwhich you seek.
The imperfections and contradictions are there for anyone to see. The problems were recognized a long time ago, and the reason why the Gnostics demoted the God of the bible to a lower status, to that of a local godling, an evil demiurge.
So, you havent the mental capacity to understand how the Creator of you and the universe just may have a higher understanding than you.
That is not the issue. Satan is the issue. Its the issue with you because satan has you. If it werent that, it would be something else.
Like a lieberal, you can see imperfection in anything. You find thatbwhich you seek.
The imperfections and contradictions are there for anyone to see. The problems were recognized a long time ago, and the reason why the Gnostics demoted the God of the bible to a lower status, to that of a local godling, an evil demiurge.
So, you havent the mental capacity to understand how the Creator of you and the universe just may have a higher understanding than you.
You prove His point.
If it has come down to slagging off at the poster, I suggest that you either read your bible, or improve your ability to comprehend what is there right before your eyes where verses describe the attributes of love and the verses that clearly contradict the given descriptions.
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
What standards do you have and where can I find them recorded?
You can find them in the new testament, I have quoted verses that refer to God in terms of love and descriptions of the nature of love. Descriptions that contradict the actions of God as described in OT.
So do you believe that Jesus existed as a man of history and as the son of God and that His teachings are accurately recorded and preserved and that they are representative of the will of His Father God?
The Israelis were always to offer peace, did not torture their POWs, and did not feed their children to the fire, were to accept those who wished to join them, and you don't see any difference. How tightly we must close our eyes.
Again, the issue is not with what the people of the time thought or how they behaved, but the morality and actions attributed to God.
Is it merciful to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? Is it an example of good morality?
By our own standards, I'd point out that it is neither merciful or moral to kill someone for such reason.
What standards do you have and where can I find them recorded?
You can find them in the new testament, I have quoted verses that refer to God in terms of love and descriptions of the nature of love. Descriptions that contradict the actions of God as described in OT.
So do you believe that Jesus existed as a man of history and as the son of God and that His teachings are accurately recorded and preserved and that they are representative of the will of His Father God?
It doesn't matter what I happen to believe or don't believe, the issue is about what the bible itself says about the attributes of love and God on the one hand, but also describes the opposite in terms of the attitude and behaviour of God. Which is clearly a contradiction by the very terms that are defined and given in the bible.
You cannot use Jesus words as standard of measure unless we understand that they are the words of Jesus. Either you accept Jesus Words and the OT record both as reliable accounts or you have no case at all to discern. You can't say you believe in Jesus moral standard if you don't even believe in Jesus or His words.
If you believe in neither testament than what is your moral standard that we are going to use to judge?
I have told what I believe about moral standards and their source. Now it your turn. It's pointless to have a moral discussion without both parties identifying their moral code. This is intended to be a fair exchange right?
You cannot use Jesus words as standard of measure unless we understand that they are the words of Jesus. Either you accept Jesus Words and the OT record both as reliable accounts or you have no case at all to discern. You can't say you believe in Jesus moral standard if you don't even believe in Jesus or His words.
If you believe in neither testament than what is your moral standard that we are going to use to judge?
The words we have are not the words of Jesus.
What we have is the words of Authors writing under the names of Mark, Luke, Matthew, Pauls' letters, etc....and the words quite obviously say what they say and mean what they mean.
One more time;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Now, once again - these are not my words, they are not my definitions. It has nothing to do with me.
Nor are these the words of Jesus. The words are written decades after the death of Jesus the charismatic Rabbi upon whom the legend was built.
I can hardly wait for you guys to get to this part of the bible.
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (i.e. the Book of Revelations), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.
The Book of LIFe has already been written and filled with the names that shall appear. hence the fate of the saved and unsaved are pre-ordained / already decided.
Yet the likes of JagX and TF49 continue futile attempts to offer hope and save people from a fate in a burning hell.
Maybe they will explain What special deal or arrangement they have with God that will force his hand to [edit] add to the contents of the Book of Life..?
I have requested jAg tell the CF on what page # his name appears, apparently he has not seen his name listed nor can he provide any supportive evidence.
All we have so far is hot gospelling salesmsanship from a pair of God botherers.
You cannot use Jesus words as standard of measure unless we understand that they are the words of Jesus. Either you accept Jesus Words and the OT record both as reliable accounts or you have no case at all to discern. You can't say you believe in Jesus moral standard if you don't even believe in Jesus or His words.
If you believe in neither testament than what is your moral standard that we are going to use to judge?
The words we have are not the words of Jesus.
What we have is the words of Authors writing under the names of Mark, Luke, Matthew, Pauls' letters, etc....and the words quite obviously say what they say and mean what they mean.
One more time;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Now, once again - these are not my words, they are not my definitions. It has nothing to do with me.
Nor are these the words of Jesus. The words are written decades after the death of Jesus the charismatic Rabbi upon whom the legend was built.
He is love, but He is also jealous, and He is also just. You make the choice to live in the law or out of it.
The Book of LIFe has already been written and filled with the names that shall appear. hence the fate of the saved and unsaved are pre-ordained / already decided..
So let's drink and chase women 'cuz it don't matter anyway? Never could figure that one out.
The Book of LIFe has already been written and filled with the names that shall appear. hence the fate of the saved and unsaved are pre-ordained / already decided.
Yet the likes of JagX and TF49 continue attempts to offer hope and save people from a fate in a burning hell.
Maybe they will explain What special deal or arrangement they have with God that will force his hand to [edit] add to the contents of the Book of Life..?
I have requested jAg tell the CF on what page # his name appears, apparently he has not seen his name listed nor can he provide any supportive evidence.
So, He knew you before you were born and what you would choose. Pretty smart, huh? He knew what Cain would do.
Those who wrote our laws loved people too and wanted civil society. Some choose to kill. Their being hung does not mean the lawmen hate them.
So, He knew you before you were born and what you would choose. Pretty smart, huh? He knew what Cain would do.
If you believe your God , then he planned it all...Adams fall , Cains murder of his righteous brother and the betrayal by Judas.
All the evil in this world is made possible by God that gave Satan divinely ordained position and power over people. God calls on Satan like a hired and trusted mercenary.
What God tells Satan to do, is dutifully done by Satan...in fact he is a much more loyal and reliable servant to God than you be...God cannot trust earthly transgressors, they fail him endlessly.
Everything that God does is deemed as good, surely that must include Satan and his purpose.
So DBT If you have don't believe the Words of Jesus as recorded are a reliable record then we can't make a comparative analysis as we might be dealing with a skewed record. Additionally you have not provided your personal moral code that you believe in. If you have no moral code then you are not a moral person. If you are not a moral person you are not qualified to make any moral analysis or draw any moral conclusions.
I am calling you out .... what is the moral code that you subscribe to, and where can I find it to read it?
You need to brush up on the nature and mechanisms of the decision making process.....if by 'free will' you mean our ability to make decisions. It's not as straightforward as you appear to think, given your simplistic remark.
So DBT If you have don't believe the Words of Jesus as recorded are a reliable record then we can't make a comparative analysis as we might be dealing with a skewed record. Additionally you have not provided your personal moral code that you believe in. If you have no moral code then you are not a moral person. If you are not a moral person you are not qualified to make any moral analysis or draw any moral conclusions.
I am calling you out .... what is the moral code that you subscribe to, and where can I find it to read it?
That's not what I said. Please go back, read more carefully and try again.
DBT It doesn't matter what you did or did not say ... I have more moral analysis to offer between the Old Testament and the New Testament and will discuss that with a person who has a moral code.
Again I am calling you out. What is your moral code? Without that you are not a moral person and having further discussion with you on this would be moral folly. Why I would try to reach a moral understanding with an amoral or immoral person?
You cannot use Jesus words as standard of measure unless we understand that they are the words of Jesus. Either you accept Jesus Words and the OT record both as reliable accounts or you have no case at all to discern. You can't say you believe in Jesus moral standard if you don't even believe in Jesus or His words.
If you believe in neither testament than what is your moral standard that we are going to use to judge?
The words we have are not the words of Jesus.
What we have is the words of Authors writing under the names of Mark, Luke, Matthew, Pauls' letters, etc....and the words quite obviously say what they say and mean what they mean.
One more time;
God is love. - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Now, once again - these are not my words, they are not my definitions. It has nothing to do with me.
Nor are these the words of Jesus. The words are written decades after the death of Jesus the charismatic Rabbi upon whom the legend was built.
He is love, but He is also jealous, and He is also just. You make the choice to live in the law or out of it.
You are indeed correct about God being a “jealous” God. This is good.
God is “vigilant in protecting his possession” and vigilant in protecting the one He loves..... He will not lose them out of His hand.
Yep, being jealous is a good thing.
But, if one does not understand language or understand the context of how words are used they cannot grasp meaning.
Oprah Winfrey has this same problem many years ago..... read a single verse, did not understand the verse nor the context, became confused .....lost in the darkness.
The Book of LIFe has already been written and filled with the names that shall appear. hence the fate of the saved and unsaved are pre-ordained / already decided.
Yet the likes of JagX and TF49 continue attempts to offer hope and save people from a fate in a burning hell.
Maybe they will explain What special deal or arrangement they have with God that will force his hand to [edit] add to the contents of the Book of Life..?
I have requested jAg tell the CF on what page # his name appears, apparently he has not seen his name listed nor can he provide any supportive evidence.
So, He knew you before you were born and what you would choose. Pretty smart, huh? He knew what Cain would do.
Those who wrote our laws loved people too and wanted civil society. Some choose to kill. Their being hung does not mean the lawmen hate them.
Thats too difficult for some to grasp.
You are again correct. God is omniscient. He knows what is going to happen. That does not mean that a man does not have a free will.
Some here will simply cop out on this or they simply cannot grapes the concept...... the individual is presented with a decision or circumstance. He evaluates and makes a choice..... it is his choice to make and he does. The infinite omniscient God knew what he would choose.
Simpe concept. Very much like a parent, who knows his child very well, given certain circumstances, can discern how that child will react .....
DBT It doesn't matter what you did or did not say ... I have more moral analysis to offer between the Old Testament and the New Testament and will discuss that with a person who has a moral code.
Again I am calling you out. What is your moral code? Without that you are not a moral person and having further discussion with you on this would be moral folly. Why I would try to reach a moral understanding with an amoral or immoral person?
It is not my moral code that is in question. It is not your moral code that is in question. It is moral code of the bible that is being questioned.
Namely, the one set of standards concerning Love and and the attributes of Love, what Love does and does not do, and that God is said to be Love....while on the other we see descriptions of God acting in a way that completely and utterly contradicts these attributes and values.
This has nothing to do with me. It is not personal. I am merely pointing to a problem that is clearly there to be seen.
Simpe concept. Very much like a parent, who knows his child very well, given certain circumstances, can discern how that child will react .....
Riiight....which is why all 'good parents' place their children in the hands of a cunning trickster as a test, then punish them severely when they are inevitably led astray in their naivety. Worse, cursing their children and their children's children for good measure...
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
1. if you are a moral person 2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form 3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit.
Again I am calling you out -- what do you believe about the reliability of the record of Jesus' teachings and what are your moral credentials?
Would any other skeptic like to continue a discussion on the moral coherency between the Old and New Testament beginning first by identifying:
1. if you are or consider yourself a moral person 2. if you have a moral code that you can provide in written form 3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
I have always tried to be a moral person. Never found any need to put that in writing. Of course the Bible is the best source of the teachings of Jesus.
And a lot of the problems and contradictions i find in the Bible have been noted by many others.
Upon what basis do you consider yourself a moral person? If you want a profitable moral discussion there needs to be some equally applied understandings. I am only asking from you what I have provided myself. You have no case of any moral contradictions without revealing the basis from which you make your moral judgments. Are you afraid to reveal your moral foundation or lack thereof?
What if a person beleived that the teachings outlined in the New Testament are a solid foundation for moral living, and endeavours to live by them, without believing that the whole thing is necessarily the inerrant word of God? I've listened to and read people who I think have some excellent points and ideas to live by, but also some that aren't quite right.
What if a person beleived that the teachings outlined in the New Testament are a solid foundation for moral living, and endeavours to live by them, without believing that the whole thing is necessarily the inerrant word of God? I've listened to and read people who I think have some excellent points and ideas to live by, but also some that aren't quite right.
A good place to start is this simple but profound moral code from the five precepts of Buddha:
"For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?
What if a person beleived that the teachings outlined in the New Testament are a solid foundation for moral living, and endeavours to live by them, without believing that the whole thing is necessarily the inerrant word of God? I've listened to and read people who I think have some excellent points and ideas to live by, but also some that aren't quite right.
That is a very good observation. I think this describes Jefferson quite well. He did not just tear down all morality but rather he at least recognized that some system of morals needs to govern and he believed that Jesus had the best system of them. While he would not accept all the Bible he did accept that the moral teachings of Jesus were reliably recorded and should be followed--which means he certainly believed that Jesus was a man of history. There is no eternal salvation in moral living but there is an earthly blessing to yourself and others. Giving our lives to Jesus and allowing Him to change our hearts gives us the nature that desires to follow His morals and other teachings.
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
1. if you are a moral person 2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form 3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit. ?
How do you prove that you have a moral code in written form. You can state what you believe in, but actions don't always match what we say. You prove your moral code in your actions. Morality comes in many forms. What is considered moral by one could very well be considered immoral to others.
Have you ever took a college level ethics class? You would know that a supernatural being is only one of about three main theories of the origins of ethics/morality. You do not need a belief in god to be a moral person. I would be willing to bet that in comparison of a religious group and an atheist group, they would both have about the same distribution of what many would consider moral and immoral population.
Your making a judgement against another member, and if he did provide a glimpse his moral compass, you would likely dismiss it based on your own bias.
To further define this point--we need to make a clear distinction between faith and morals. Morals are the bedrock foundation of a society which if challenged or overthrown will reinvent that society. Morals are the foundation of law.
Faith on the other hand is purely voluntary--meaning it lies solely between individuals and God or a group of individuals and God. You cannot coerce faith or it is no longer faith. The genius of the American and Canadian experiences were that they understood this distinction in their early days. Their laws were based on Biblical morals but they left faith be free. The two should work hand in hand and that is how we allow diversity of religion and yet keep a strong moral foundation for law. The next challenge is what morality will we accept as our basis?
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
1. if you are a moral person 2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form 3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit. ?
How do you prove that you have a moral code in written form. You can state what you believe in, but actions don't always match what we say. You prove your moral code in your actions. Morality comes in many forms. What is considered moral by one could very well be considered immoral to others.
Have you ever took a college level ethics class? You would know that a supernatural being is only one of about three main theories of the origins of ethics/morality. You do not need a belief in god to be a moral person. I would be willing to bet that in comparison of a religious group and an atheist group, they would both have about the same distribution of what many would consider moral and immoral population.
Your making a judgement against another member, and if he did provide a glimpse his moral compass, you would likely dismiss it based on your own bias.
Yes of course you can have personal morals without writing them down. But unless they are based on something that can be written down they are worthless. Additionally, if you are going to do a moral analysis from a moral benchmark you need to write them down so everyone can see the moral benchmark. My code is written, but no skeptics have provided their code by which they are making moral observations and judgments.
And yes as you note no skeptic here seems willing to provide a written moral code that they will stand by. That is a very evident sign of the weakness of their system and why moral discussions with them are often unproductive. I did not ask for belief in deity, I asked for a written moral code for reference.
I'm still waiting for that--lacking that there is no moral foundation in skepticism and no means by which a skeptic can consider themselves a moral person.
Do you have a moral code that you ascribe to? Is it written or can it be written? Does anyone else use it or is it just your personal opinion?
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
1. if you are a moral person 2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form 3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit. ?
How do you prove that you have a moral code in written form. You can state what you believe in, but actions don't always match what we say. You prove your moral code in your actions. Morality comes in many forms. What is considered moral by one could very well be considered immoral to others.
Have you ever took a college level ethics class? You would know that a supernatural being is only one of about three main theories of the origins of ethics/morality. You do not need a belief in god to be a moral person. I would be willing to bet that in comparison of a religious group and an atheist group, they would both have about the same distribution of what many would consider moral and immoral population.
Your making a judgement against another member, and if he did provide a glimpse his moral compass, you would likely dismiss it based on your own bias.
I don't believe that is fair. What I do believe is Thunderstick has shown himself tolerant, patient, well spoken, and accepting without ridicule that which others post.
Of course, he believes that simply being a moral person will not save you. It won't.
Certainly, it will well serve anyone and everyone to have a well tuned moral compass, but beyond that there is a much larger and more significant prize.
And that prize is something we want for all of those who do not presently believe. Many have given their lives in taking this prize to the masses. It was also the last declaration made by Jesus to His disciples to spread the Word about Him throughout the world.
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique
DBT It doesn't matter what you did or did not say ... I have more moral analysis to offer between the Old Testament and the New Testament and will discuss that with a person who has a moral code.
Again I am calling you out. What is your moral code? Without that you are not a moral person and having further discussion with you on this would be moral folly. Why I would try to reach a moral understanding with an amoral or immoral person?
It is not my moral code that is in question. It is not your moral code that is in question. It is moral code of the bible that is being questioned.
Namely, the one set of standards concerning Love and and the attributes of Love, what Love does and does not do, and that God is said to be Love....while on the other we see descriptions of God acting in a way that completely and utterly contradicts these attributes and values.
This has nothing to do with me. It is not personal. I am merely pointing to a problem that is clearly there to be seen.
Yeah, i got a real problem with the sun coming up later and going down earlier around here every darn fall. Its ridiculous i tell you and im not going to stand for that BS.
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique
Reading and reading and reading here. As I see it. You TS, keep coming back to one's personal morals and who has a right based upon their personal morals to judge the morals of the Bible.
And then we have a group, to which I subscribe, who seem to be saying "look the OT and the NT are contradictory at their very foundation which is the law and the morality taught therein".
What I would protest and I think I am seeing in others' writings. I am not judging either the Nt or the OT by MY morals.
But judge the OT purely by the morals of the NT, and judge the NT purely by the morals of the OT. My morals are irrelevant. I am an impartial observer. To be otherwise would not be a fair judgement.
The morals of the OT come up severely short compared to the NT in matters of love, forgiveness, and inclusiveness.
The morals of the NT come up severely short compared to the OT in matters of Law.
An impartial observer could easily conclude they were authored by two entirely different entities.
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique
Reading and reading and reading here. As I see it. You TS, keep coming back to one's personal morals and who has a right based upon their personal morals to judge the morals of the Bible.
And then we have a group, to which I subscribe, who seem to be saying "look the OT and the NT are contradictory at their very foundation which is the law and the morality taught therein".
What I would protest and I think I am seeing in others' writings. I am not judging either the Nt or the OT by MY morals.
But judge the OT purely by the morals of the NT, and judge the NT purely by the morals of the OT. My morals are irrelevant. I am an impartial observer. To be otherwise would not be a fair judgement.
The morals of the OT come up severely short compared to the NT in matters of love, forgiveness, and inclusiveness.
The morals of the NT come up severely short compared to the OT in matters of Law.
An impartial observer could easily conclude they were authored by two entirely different entities.
I'm looking at two things: 1. If a person does not believe in any morals or have any moral code of conduct they are not qualified to judge morality because their amoral prejudice will likely pervert their moral judgment because they have already rejected the value of any moral standards and that discussion will be pointless. They will focused on seeing contradictions and will not be open to reconciliations. 2. I'm also asking for their proposed standard of moral measurement by which we will judge the Bible--whether that is personal, corporate, Hammurabi's or Buddha's. We need to fairly declare that standard before we engage in any more moral analysis.Not having that in place will again be a fruitless exercise because someone will likely invent their rules of logic and moral standards as we go.
Why am I insisting on this? We have pages which have already demonstrated that this is how it has already gone. We dealt with alleged contradictions, some of which a young teenager with a little common sense could have figured out and seen they were not contradictions at all ... and then they get repeated again. When I see this happen I can only assume someone is not looking for a profitable discourse or even answers, but is looking to obfuscate.
I am ready to take this forward into more detail if a skeptic or the group is willing to engage with all of the moral benchmark data on the table. Mine is already there and I am waiting.
Western moral codes have been traced back to fourth century Greece and were more or less copied into the Hebrew Bible. Do no harm and do to others as you have them do to you. Very simple and no need to write them down. In the Old Testament they were written down and ignored.
Unlike some, I have a life to live offline. I cannot be here 24/7.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
DBT
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
My study of the bible has been in far more depth than yours. Based on what you write, you ignore anything that looks like a contradiction or a problem or order to maintain the preferred version, the things that are taught in Sunday school.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
1. if you are a moral person 2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form 3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit.
Again I am calling you out -- what do you believe about the reliability of the record of Jesus' teachings and what are your moral credentials?
Once again. It is not my moral standards that are under question. It is the moral standards of the bible that are under question. Your trying to impose your own conditions onto me as way of deflection from the actual issues.
Do you really mean to say that if I don't provide a description of my own moral standards there are no contradictions in the bible?
That is not an argument. It's ludicrous.
That there are problems in the bible is undeniable. For example;
If God is good to all and his tender mercies are all of his works;
''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.''Psalm 145:9
Yet God has a man killed for gathering sticks on a Sabbath;
While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-36:
God is clearly not good to all and has shown no mercy toward what to us as mere humans would call a trivial offense. Certainly not a Capital Crime.
We have;
1)God is good to all 2)God kills a man for gathering sticks. 3)God showed no goodness toward that man 4)The Lord is a God of tender mercy. 5) The Lord did not show any mercy for a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
God is good to all/God was not good toward the gatherer of sticks'
The lord is a God of tender mercy/ The Lord showed no mercy for a trivial offense.
So DBT If you have don't believe the Words of Jesus as recorded are a reliable record then we can't make a comparative analysis as we might be dealing with a skewed record. Additionally you have not provided your personal moral code that you believe in. If you have no moral code then you are not a moral person. If you are not a moral person you are not qualified to make any moral analysis or draw any moral conclusions.
I am calling you out .... what is the moral code that you subscribe to, and where can I find it to read it?
Even rats exhibit moral behaviors. Are you claiming they have a "written code"?
I'm not aware of anything stated that way in the OT. We have something similar in "love your neighbor as yourself. " Is this the moral code that you would subscribe to and use as a test of morality?
The Book of LIFe has already been written and filled with the names that shall appear. hence the fate of the saved and unsaved are pre-ordained / already decided.
Yet the likes of JagX and TF49 continue attempts to offer hope and save people from a fate in a burning hell.
Maybe they will explain What special deal or arrangement they have with God that will force his hand to [edit] add to the contents of the Book of Life..?
I have requested jAg tell the CF on what page # his name appears, apparently he has not seen his name listed nor can he provide any supportive evidence.
So, He knew you before you were born and what you would choose. Pretty smart, huh? He knew what Cain would do.
Those who wrote our laws loved people too and wanted civil society. Some choose to kill. Their being hung does not mean the lawmen hate them.
Thats too difficult for some to grasp.
You are again correct. God is omniscient. He knows what is going to happen. That does not mean that a man does not have a free will.
Some here will simply cop out on this or they simply cannot grapes the concept...... the individual is presented with a decision or circumstance. He evaluates and makes a choice..... it is his choice to make and he does. The infinite omniscient God knew what he would choose.
Simpe concept. Very much like a parent, who knows his child very well, given certain circumstances, can discern how that child will react .....
Not the same.
The parents can be wrong, and they did not choose the out come of your being before you were made.
I'm not aware of anything stated that way in the OT. We have something similar in "love your neighbor as yourself. " Is this the moral code that you would subscribe to and use as a test of morality?
Keep in mind, by "thy neighbor" the OT means other Jews.
Love other Jews as yourself, but buy your slaves from the Heathen around you.
I'm not aware of anything stated that way in the OT. We have something similar in "love your neighbor as yourself. " Is this the moral code that you would subscribe to and use as a test of morality?
Keep in mind, by "thy neighbor" the OT means other Jews.
Love other Jews as yourself, but by your slaves from the Heathen around you.
i just hate it when cultures collide.
always hopeful peaceful solutions to differences can be found.
I'm looking at two things: 1. If a person does not believe in any morals or have any moral code of conduct they are not qualified to judge morality because their amoral prejudice will likely pervert their moral judgment because they have already rejected the value of any moral standards and that discussion will be pointless. They will focused on seeing contradictions and will not be open to reconciliations.
No,you are trying to impose your own rules.
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the moral standards of the poster.
The issue of contradictions is about what the bible itself says about morality and what the bible itself describes about the character and actions of its god.
A god that evolved through time, thought and culture from a vicious, vindictive deity to the relatively more tolerant God of the new testament.
'Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
The Lord is a man of war, Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey . . . so shall the Lord of hosts come down to fight for Mount Zion" Isa. 31:4
As opposed to:
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
As any objective reader can see, these are two entirely different descriptions, two opposing descriptions that clearly contradict each other.
Unlike some, I have a life to live offline. I cannot be here 24/7.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
DBT
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
My study of the bible has been in far more depth than yours. Based on what you write, you ignore anything that looks like a contradiction or a problem or order to maintain the preferred version, the things that are taught in Sunday school.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
1. if you are a moral person 2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form 3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit.
Again I am calling you out -- what do you believe about the reliability of the record of Jesus' teachings and what are your moral credentials?
Once again. It is not my moral standards that are under question. It is the moral standards of the bible that are under question. Your trying to impose your own conditions onto me as way of deflection from the actual issues.
Do you really mean to say that if I don't provide a description of my own moral standards there are no contradictions in the bible?
That is not an argument. It's ludicrous.
That there are problems in the bible is undeniable. For example;
If God is good to all and his tender mercies are all of his works;
''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.''Psalm 145:9
Yet God has a man killed for gathering sticks on a Sabbath;
While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-36:
God is clearly not good to all and has shown no mercy toward what to us as mere humans would call a trivial offense. Certainly not a Capital Crime.
We have;
1)God is good to all 2)God kills a man for gathering sticks. 3)God showed no goodness toward that man 4)The Lord is a God of tender mercy. 5) The Lord did not show any mercy for a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
God is good to all/God was not good toward the gatherer of sticks'
The lord is a God of tender mercy/ The Lord showed no mercy for a trivial offens
So it does look like you are passing. I'm not seeing you reference your moral standards by which you make moral conclusions. Furthermore you folks were initially wanting the difference between the old and new explained but now you are critiquing the old. You exhibit my point. With no understanding in place you guys are all making random potshots.
Western moral codes have been traced back to fourth century Greece and were more or less copied into the Hebrew Bible. Do no harm and do to others as you have them do to you. Very simple and no need to write them down. In the Old Testament they were written down and ignored.
Those same idea's appear in the Vedas a thousand years before the inception of the Bible.
I'm not aware of anything stated that way in the OT. We have something similar in "love your neighbor as yourself. " Is this the moral code that you would subscribe to and use as a test of morality?
Keep in mind, by "thy neighbor" the OT means other Jews.
Love other Jews as yourself, but by your slaves from the Heathen around you.
i just hate it when cultures collide.
always hopeful peaceful solutions to differences can be found.
good diplomats are worth their weight in gold.
In the long term, free and fair trade is more profitable than war.
And yes as you note no skeptic here seems willing to provide a written moral code that they will stand by. That is a very evident sign of the weakness of their system and why moral discussions with them are often unproductive. I did not ask for belief in deity, I asked for a written moral code for reference.
I'm still waiting for that--lacking that there is no moral foundation in skepticism and no means by which a skeptic can consider themselves a moral person.
Do you have a moral code that you ascribe to? Is it written or can it be written? Does anyone else use it or is it just your personal opinion?
Easy.......summed up. Not sure if I’m a ‘skeptic’ or not, though you’d likely classify me as such. 1) Courage 2) Truth 3) Honour 4) Fidelity 5) Discipline 6) Hospitality 7) Industriousness 8) Self Reliance 9) Perseverance
Once again. It is not my moral standards that are under question. It is the moral standards of the bible that are under question. Your trying to impose your own conditions onto me as way of deflection from the actual issues.
Do you really mean to say that if I don't provide a description of my own moral standards there are no contradictions in the bible?
That is not an argument. It's ludicrous.
That there are problems in the bible is undeniable. For example;
If God is good to all and his tender mercies are all of his works;
''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.''Psalm 145:9
Yet God has a man killed for gathering sticks on a Sabbath;
While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-36:
God is clearly not good to all and has shown no mercy toward what to us as mere humans would call a trivial offense. Certainly not a Capital Crime.
We have;
1)God is good to all 2)God kills a man for gathering sticks. 3)God showed no goodness toward that man 4)The Lord is a God of tender mercy. 5) The Lord did not show any mercy for a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
God is good to all/God was not good toward the gatherer of sticks'
The lord is a God of tender mercy/ The Lord showed no mercy for a trivial offense.
You just claimed your morals are not involved and then you turn around and make a moral judgment on God's law and the application of it. Notice the 4 places in bold where you made a moral judgment. Upon what basis are you making your judgments of what is a trivial offense and what is a capital offense and what is and what is not merciful? In the very post where you said your morals are irrelevant you made a judgment based solely on your morals with no reference to a recognized moral standard. You could not have illustrated my point better.
So what is your moral standard to determine trivial and capital offenses?
My study of the bible has been in far more depth than yours. Based on what you write, you ignore anything that looks like a contradiction or a problem or order to maintain the preferred version, the things that are taught in Sunday school.
So it does look like you are passing. I'm not seeing you reference your moral standards by which you make moral conclusions.
I'm not the one avoiding the issue by trying to impose personal conditions that have nothing to do with subject matter: contradictions in the bible. If you understand what a contradiction entails.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Furthermore you folks were initially wanting the difference between the old and new explained but now you are critiquing the old. You exhibit my point. With no understanding in place you guys are all making random potshots.
When you say ''no understanding in place'' you actually mean your interpretation, an interpretation that ignores or dismisses what the verses actually say by imposing your own meaning, your own rules.
That has been your ploy all along.
In case I am accused of folding again, I have business to attend to. Back in a few hours. Cheers.
My study of the bible has been in far more depth than yours. Based on what you write, you ignore anything that looks like a contradiction or a problem or order to maintain the preferred version, the things that are taught in Sunday school.
I enjoyed this one!
So you should. It is the truth. Inconvenient truths like contradictions in the bible are being dismissed.
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique
Reading and reading and reading here. As I see it. You TS, keep coming back to one's personal morals and who has a right based upon their personal morals to judge the morals of the Bible.
And then we have a group, to which I subscribe, who seem to be saying "look the OT and the NT are contradictory at their very foundation which is the law and the morality taught therein".
What I would protest and I think I am seeing in others' writings. I am not judging either the Nt or the OT by MY morals.
But judge the OT purely by the morals of the NT, and judge the NT purely by the morals of the OT. My morals are irrelevant. I am an impartial observer. To be otherwise would not be a fair judgement.
The morals of the OT come up severely short compared to the NT in matters of love, forgiveness, and inclusiveness.
The morals of the NT come up severely short compared to the OT in matters of Law.
An impartial observer could easily conclude they were authored by two entirely different entities.
I'm looking at two things: 1. If a person does not believe in any morals or have any moral code of conduct they are not qualified to judge morality because their amoral prejudice will likely pervert their moral judgment because they have already rejected the value of any moral standards and that discussion will be pointless. They will focused on seeing contradictions and will not be open to reconciliations. 2. I'm also asking for their proposed standard of moral measurement by which we will judge the Bible--whether that is personal, corporate, Hammurabi's or Buddha's. We need to fairly declare that standard before we engage in any more moral analysis.Not having that in place will again be a fruitless exercise because someone will likely invent their rules of logic and moral standards as we go.
Why am I insisting on this? We have pages which have already demonstrated that this is how it has already gone. We dealt with alleged contradictions, some of which a young teenager with a little common sense could have figured out and seen they were not contradictions at all ... and then they get repeated again. When I see this happen I can only assume someone is not looking for a profitable discourse or even answers, but is looking to obfuscate.
I am ready to take this forward into more detail if a skeptic or the group is willing to engage with all of the moral benchmark data on the table. Mine is already there and I am waiting.
Thunderstick:
Here's the six moral foundations that make up moral systems:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
Here's a couple of video's discussing how liberals, conservatives, and libertarian order these differently:
Wait a bit. While a good post with interesting points, is the list you posted more of a “social” or codes associated with established societies and not directly related to one’s own personal conduct?
Let me think about this a while.
Societal norms and codified behaviors seem different than personal moral conduct.
Wait a bit. While a good post with interesting points, is the list you posted more of a “social” or codes associated with established societies and not directly related to one’s own personal conduct?
Let me think about this a while.
Societal norms and codified behaviors seem different than personal moral conduct.
TF,
That's a valid question.
The list is about PERSONAL moral values. As an example, some people may have personal moral values that promote the general welfare of the society, because if the society fails, well, that's bad for all of us. Other's may have a personal moral value hierarchy that emphasizes values focused on the individual.
Liberals might be focuses on the plight of the poor illegal immigrants as individuals, while conservatives may be more concerned about crime and disease they bring, along with how it's unfair they consume more tax money than they pay in.
So think of it as six variable through which people can view moral issues at both the micro and macro level.
Wait a bit. While a good post with interesting points, is the list you posted more of a “social” or codes associated with established societies and not directly related to one’s own personal conduct?
Let me think about this a while.
Societal norms and codified behaviors seem different than personal moral conduct.
TF,
That's a valid question.
The list is about PERSONAL moral values. As an example, some people may have personal moral values that promote the general welfare of the society, because if the society fails, well, that's bad for all of us. Other's may have a personal moral value hierarchy that emphasizes values focused on the individual.
Liberals might be focuses on the plight of the poor illegal immigrants as individuals, while conservatives may be more concerned about crime and disease they bring, along with how it's unfair they consume more tax money than they pay in.
So think of it as six variable through which people can view moral issues at both the micro and macro level.
Well, I’ve got to cogitate some more and life is busy back east so I have to be gone for awhile.
Still seems like ethics as taught by a society and their norms and is different from how a moral or immoral person may behave.
One would think that a person with “ethics” would behave consistent with the norms, but when somehow challenged on a very personal level, may make an immoral judgment or take immoral or unethical action.
Morals and societal ethics seem different to me.....
And yes as you note no skeptic here seems willing to provide a written moral code that they will stand by. That is a very evident sign of the weakness of their system and why moral discussions with them are often unproductive. I did not ask for belief in deity, I asked for a written moral code for reference.
I'm still waiting for that--lacking that there is no moral foundation in skepticism and no means by which a skeptic can consider themselves a moral person.
Do you have a moral code that you ascribe to? Is it written or can it be written? Does anyone else use it or is it just your personal opinion?
Easy.......summed up. Not sure if I’m a ‘skeptic’ or not, though you’d likely classify me as such. 1) Courage 2) Truth 3) Honour 4) Fidelity 5) Discipline 6) Hospitality 7) Industriousness 8) Self Reliance 9) Perseverance
Qualities most often found in the progressive lieberal movement?
I do applaud you, but dont ask me to belive those are more than rare in todays progressive culture. Much more common is the "If it feels good, do it" and "Do unto others before they do it to you".
Your platitudes are hardly applicable to most of those in the dimocrap camp of our govt.
Once again. It is not my moral standards that are under question. It is the moral standards of the bible that are under question. Your trying to impose your own conditions onto me as way of deflection from the actual issues.
Do you really mean to say that if I don't provide a description of my own moral standards there are no contradictions in the bible?
That is not an argument. It's ludicrous.
That there are problems in the bible is undeniable. For example;
If God is good to all and his tender mercies are all of his works;
''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.''Psalm 145:9
Yet God has a man killed for gathering sticks on a Sabbath;
While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-36:
God is clearly not good to all and has shown no mercy toward what to us as mere humans would call a trivial offense. Certainly not a Capital Crime.
We have;
1)God is good to all 2)God kills a man for gathering sticks. 3)God showed no goodness toward that man 4)The Lord is a God of tender mercy. 5) The Lord did not show any mercy for a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
God is good to all/God was not good toward the gatherer of sticks'
The lord is a God of tender mercy/ The Lord showed no mercy for a trivial offense.
This is an excellent post to use as an example of a skeptic moralizing from their own arbitrary standards. Rather than even trying to understand the texts within their contexts an outside morality is inserted which makes moral judgments without stating the moral law which is the basis of that judgment. I have been noting this regularly with others, but you have done it a few more times here which helps illustrate the point being made.
Now let's look at these texts.
The sabbath was established as part of the order of creation--a fundamental part of the original law and order for the moral code of man. Gen.2:2,3 God knew that man needed to be in relationship with Him in order for the world to perform as He intended. He sanctified that 7th day and asked that it be observed for physical rest and spiritual focus. This was essential for the creation order and the well being of man. Man needed to recognize the existence of God, the fact that he is the servant of God, and that he also needs physical rest. The laws of the 10 commandments did not ordain the sabbath, rather it reinforced the sabbath by saying "remember" the Sabbath day to keep it holy." So the order of keeping the Sabbath holy from the very beginning is part of the first moral code of conduct.
This is where personal morals come into play because atheists or agnostics typically cannot see any value in remembering God or in keeping any day holy for Him. With all the moral law flowing from God, the moral lawgiver; keeping God in view was essential to preserving God's moral law. Therefore the Sabbath was the first and highest ordinance of honor to God. A violation of the sabbath was a deliberate act of profanation against God and a rebellion against His moral law. The violation of it is not about picking up sticks per se, it is about defiance against God, and God's law, and all that both of them stand for. Its picking the one day that God has sanctified using that day to express open defiance against Him, His law, and the order of His people. Let this go unpunished, or even trivialized, and the sabbath ordinance will cease and man will drift away from God and His laws.
In a more practical sense the whole concept of a 7 day week comes from this ordinance and the concept of 1 day off in 7 for rest and spiritual focus. Simply dropping the Lord's day (1st day in 7 according to the new creation by Christ) and treating it like any other day will eventually degrade our spiritual priorities and focus and undermine everything sacred and holy.The Jews, their families, their servants, and their livestock all rested on the 7th day.
When you have this proper understanding of the sabbath (and you can verify this with traditional Judaism) you can easily understand why the gathering of sticks was a capital offense--because it was a deliberate act of rebellion and profanation against God, His laws, and the spiritual welfare of His people.
The capital punishment was a beneficent act of mercy because it shielded the rest of the people from contemplating a similar action. The punishment maintained the sanctity of the people and preserved their faith and the ordinance which would help maintain their relationship with God and His moral law.
So to the Jew, even the corporal punishments of their law were just acts of mercy which shielded the rest of the people from the degradation of their society. The offenders knew when they made a rebellious choice that consequences were likely to be swift and deadly if they were caught.
But again, if you do not have the same moral background or respect for God and His laws you will never understand how the mercy and grace of God were manifested in justice. The same authors who extolled the mercy of God were the same ones who said they loved the law of the Lord. Catching an offender and executing corporal punishment was viewed as a cleansing from rebellion and moral decline. There is absolutely no tension in these passages when they are understood within the context of the Jewish faith--they see perfect harmony.
So when you reject this explanation -- remember you are doing so on the basis of your own morality and are doing so because you also would consider it a trivial thing to despise God and His laws.
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique
Reading and reading and reading here. As I see it. You TS, keep coming back to one's personal morals and who has a right based upon their personal morals to judge the morals of the Bible.
And then we have a group, to which I subscribe, who seem to be saying "look the OT and the NT are contradictory at their very foundation which is the law and the morality taught therein".
What I would protest and I think I am seeing in others' writings. I am not judging either the Nt or the OT by MY morals.
But judge the OT purely by the morals of the NT, and judge the NT purely by the morals of the OT. My morals are irrelevant. I am an impartial observer. To be otherwise would not be a fair judgement.
The morals of the OT come up severely short compared to the NT in matters of love, forgiveness, and inclusiveness.
The morals of the NT come up severely short compared to the OT in matters of Law.
An impartial observer could easily conclude they were authored by two entirely different entities.
I'm looking at two things: 1. If a person does not believe in any morals or have any moral code of conduct they are not qualified to judge morality because their amoral prejudice will likely pervert their moral judgment because they have already rejected the value of any moral standards and that discussion will be pointless. They will focused on seeing contradictions and will not be open to reconciliations. 2. I'm also asking for their proposed standard of moral measurement by which we will judge the Bible--whether that is personal, corporate, Hammurabi's or Buddha's. We need to fairly declare that standard before we engage in any more moral analysis.Not having that in place will again be a fruitless exercise because someone will likely invent their rules of logic and moral standards as we go.
Why am I insisting on this? We have pages which have already demonstrated that this is how it has already gone. We dealt with alleged contradictions, some of which a young teenager with a little common sense could have figured out and seen they were not contradictions at all ... and then they get repeated again. When I see this happen I can only assume someone is not looking for a profitable discourse or even answers, but is looking to obfuscate.
I am ready to take this forward into more detail if a skeptic or the group is willing to engage with all of the moral benchmark data on the table. Mine is already there and I am waiting.
Thunderstick:
Here's the six moral foundations that make up moral systems:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
Here's a couple of video's discussing how liberals, conservatives, and libertarian order these differently:
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
Here's the six moral foundations that make up moral systems:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
Here's a couple of video's discussing how liberals, conservatives, and libertarian order these differently:
I am done for tonight but this is a very good basis to speak from. Tomorrow as time allows I will try to go through some unifying points between the Testaments and then I will go through some clear changes. I would prefer to do this one premise at a time so we understand each other. I am not asking you to agree with anything I say. All I am asking is that you try to understand the Bible within the context of it's own morality as I would try to do the same for you. We can make comparative observations from your points and mine. Thanks again
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
That's the same dodge being used again and again...this has nothing to do with who 'embraces' this or that morality. It has has nothing to do with what you happen to believe or what I happen to believe.....this is purely and simply about what the bible describes and what the bible defines in terms of love and morality.
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
That's the same dodge being used again and again...this has nothing to do with who 'embraces' this or that morality. It has has nothing to do with what you happen to believe or what I happen to believe.....this is purely and simply about what the bible describes and what the bible defines in terms of love and morality.
Did you read my explanation above? That explanation will make sense to a Christian or Jew. It will not make sense to an infidel. The Bible will always be hidden to those who reject its message no matter how much they study it. As Jesus said seeing they shall see and not perceive. Conversely an unbelievers moral reasoning can appear very distorted to believers. In the case above though that logic shouldn't be that difficult to follow.
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
That's the same dodge being used again and again...this has nothing to do with who 'embraces' this or that morality. It has has nothing to do with what you happen to believe or what I happen to believe.....this is purely and simply about what the bible describes and what the bible defines in terms of love and morality.
Did you read my explanation above? That explanation will make sense to a Christian or Jew. It will not make sense to an infidel. The Bible will always be hidden to those who reject its message no matter how much they study it. As Jesus said seeing they shall see and not perceive. Conversely an unbelievers moral reasoning can appear very distorted to believers. In the case above though that logic shouldn't be that difficult to follow.
Your explanation is false for the given reasons. The words and descriptions we have in the bible cannot be interpreted to mean something other than what the words and descriptions actually say and mean.
The words and descriptions do not change if the reader happens to be Hindu, Christian, Jew or sceptic.
Your objection fails to account for the contradictions that are clearly there to be seen and read.
This is all getting rather silly and hard to read. One has to have documented moral beliefs in order to comment on the perceived differences between the OT and NT? And those moral beliefs must conform to some standard for the opinion not to be dismissed out of hand? Sounds like a liberal progressive theme. Disagree with the orthodoxy (as proclaimed by AOC) and you are deemed worthless and your opinion amounts to nothing more than gibberish. Socrates would be shocked.
Well I'm trying to help you understand why you can't understand the Bible. It's largely because your moral system will not allow you to see anything but a contradiction where you want to see one because you want to reject its message. Your mind is already closed to any logical explanation. Some of the alleged contradictions are simply resolved with a little common sense and logic. The one above is more involved.
Well I'm trying to help you understand why you can't understand the Bible. It's largely because your moral system will not allow you to see anything but a contradiction where you want to see one because you want to reject its message. Your mind is already closed to any logical explanation. Some of the alleged contradictions are simply resolved with a little common sense and logic. The one above is more involved.
Once again, this is not a case of sceptics arguing morality from their own values or interpretations but what the bible itself says about love, morality, mercy, tolerance.
The Bible coheres for those who embrace a Biblical morality but will not always cohere with an outside morality. I cannot make the Bible satisfy your morality because it is vastly different and it is your differing morality which sees contradictions at times in areas where we see perfect balance between two points in tension.
That's the same dodge being used again and again...this has nothing to do with who 'embraces' this or that morality. It has has nothing to do with what you happen to believe or what I happen to believe.....this is purely and simply about what the bible describes and what the bible defines in terms of love and morality.
Did you read my explanation above? That explanation will make sense to a Christian or Jew. It will not make sense to an infidel. The Bible will always be hidden to those who reject its message no matter how much they study it. As Jesus said seeing they shall see and not perceive. Conversely an unbelievers moral reasoning can appear very distorted to believers. In the case above though that logic shouldn't be that difficult to follow.
Your explanation is false for the given reasons. The words and descriptions we have in the bible cannot be interpreted to mean something other than what the words and descriptions actually say and mean.
The words and descriptions do not change if the reader happens to be Hindu, Christian, Jew or sceptic.
Your objection fails to account for the contradictions that are clearly there to be seen and read.
My explanation would make a lot sense to other religions with holy days but it won't make any sense to someone who rejects anything holy.
Well I'm trying to help you understand why you can't understand the Bible. It's largely because your moral system will not allow you to see anything but a contradiction where you want to see one because you want to reject its message. Your mind is already closed to any logical explanation. Some of the alleged contradictions are simply resolved with a little common sense and logic. The one above is more involved.
So you have to subscribe to the bible before you can understand the bible?
This is all getting rather silly and hard to read. One has to have documented moral beliefs in order to comment on the perceived differences between the OT and NT? And those moral beliefs must conform to some standard for the opinion not to be dismissed out of hand? Sounds like a liberal progressive theme. Disagree with the orthodoxy (as proclaimed by AOC) and you are deemed worthless and your opinion amounts to nothing more than gibberish. Socrates would be shocked.
Yes, the degree of denial is quite astonishing. The definition of a contradiction is not that difficult to grasp. A contradiction within a book or sentence does not entail the beliefs or moral standards of reader. To impose such a condition is absurd.
My explanation would make a lot sense to other religions with holy days but it won't make any sense to someone who rejects anything holy.
That's ludicrous. Anyone who is able to read in the language the bible is printed in is capable of reading the bible and understanding the meaning of its verses.
If there is are verses that tell us that god is Love and god is good to all, and we have verses that tell us that god is vindictive, causing evil, willing to kill a man for gathering sticks for his fire, then there clearly is a contradiction between the two claims.
There is no way of reading or interpretation that changes what the verses clearly say and clearly mean into something that they don't say or mean.
In case the definition of a contradiction is not understood, here is a primer;
a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another. "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a situation in which inconsistent elements are present. "the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction" the statement of a position opposite to one already made. "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
Phrases contradiction in terms — a statement or group of words associating incompatible objects or ideas.
Going from OT to NT is interesting. At mass you get an old testament reading, a new testament reading, and a Gospel reading. Followed by a sermon that explains the readings, how they all relate, and what it means to us in our lives. Often the old testament reading prophesies what's fulfilled in the new testament.
That's the general theme, the OT is the promise and NT the fulfillment so they cannot be at odds. If you consider the the OT was written to teach moral truths, not history, not "The Art of War" and was written to address the people of the times much can be reconciled. The Jewish patriarchy was particularly strong (ferinstance "father" was all-controlling and could be translated as "lord," call no man lord) and rulers were cruel and absolute
Going from OT to NT is interesting. At mass you get an old testament reading, a new testament reading, and a Gospel reading. Followed by a sermon that explains the readings, how they all relate, and what it means to us in our lives. Often the old testament reading prophesies what's fulfilled in the new testament.
That's the general theme, the OT is the promise and NT the fulfillment so they cannot be at odds. If you consider the the OT was written to teach moral truths, not history, not "The Art of War" and was written to address the people of the times much can be reconciled. The Jewish patriarchy was particularly strong (ferinstance "father" was all-controlling and could be translated as "lord," call no man lord) and rulers were cruel and absolute
The problem is not the morals of the people at the time, being atrocious enough by our standards, but the given descriptions of the god they believed in. Which is more a reflection of their own morality than any timeless values you'd expect to see from a compassionate god, a God of Love as described in the NT. As the saying goes, we create our gods in our own image.
As I said, the OT was the promise (salvation) and the NT the fulfillment.
And God as King would have been portrayed as an earthly king only more powerful and terrible. Offend an earthly king at the time even the slightest and if you're lucky your death wouldn't be too horrible. That's what the people understood, that's what they wrote. Terrible but just.
Keep in mind the OT was written to teach moral values, like follow God's commands, which is true in the NT too. Not to precisely describe the nature of God. That came later. (my opinion)
Well I'm trying to help you understand why you can't understand the Bible. It's largely because your moral system will not allow you to see anything but a contradiction where you want to see one because you want to reject its message. Your mind is already closed to any logical explanation. Some of the alleged contradictions are simply resolved with a little common sense and logic. The one above is more involved.
TS,
I agree with you. Some ideas can only be understood by some one who wants to understand.
“You can lead a horse to new ideas, but you can’t make him think”
And as usual, some things are only spiritually discerned and it seems rare that the Spirit reveals them to those who do not want to see and who choose to stay in the darkness.
Thst is their choice and the direction they take in life is freely made by them. They are not only comfortable with their choices,they are proud of them.
Let's look at the alleged contradiction from a chronological perspective now: The alleged contradiction (with it's inserted moral conclusions in that do not reference any moral code) is:
Quote
1)God is good to all 2)God kills a man for gathering sticks. 3)God showed no goodness toward that man 4)The Lord is a God of tender mercy. 5) The Lord did not show any mercy for a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
God is good to all/God was not good toward the gatherer of sticks'
The lord is a God of tender mercy/ The Lord showed no mercy for a trivial offense.
1. God created the world and Instituted a Sabbath day of rest and sanctification Gen.22,3
2. God through Moses gave laws regarding the observance of the Sabbath to uphold the creation institution. a. The Sabbath was one of the Ten Commandments -- a mandatory day of rest and spiritual focus for every living thing in the nation: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Ex 20:8–11).
The whole congregation was gathered together and the law and the death penalty were stated: Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do.Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. (Ex 35:1–2).
No fires were to be kindled in the home: You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” (Ex 35:3). This obviously means that you would not be gathering sticks for a fire.
No cooking was allowed from evening to evening--the family had to prepare their food the day before, for everyone to be able to remember God's goodness and to enjoy the creative fruits of the week before (as God did on the original Sabbath): On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, 23 he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’ ” 24 So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. 25 Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.” (Ex 16:22–26).
No food gathering was allowed and no one was supposed to be outside their dwelling (for work): The LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day. (Ex 16:29–30).
3. The Sabbath observance is given as the central sign of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. And the LORD said to Moses, 13 “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. (Ex 31:12–13; cf Ezek 20.12: Moreover, I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them. )
5. To violate this central mandate was a capital offense (stated over and over and over): You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. (Ex 31:14–16).
6. So the man who gathers sticks knows about the laws of the Sabbath and the death penalty related to breaking it. He deliberately broke it a way to flaunt each of the precepts regarding the Sabbath: a.) he went out when he was to remain inside, b.) he gathered sticks for a fire which he was not to make c.) he intended to cook a meal d.) he was showing blatant disregard for what everyone knew and practiced and what he knew was important to their faith and practice. d.) ultimately he was rejecting God and God's people and the established sign of their relationship.
Essentially it was an act of "Yea I know about all the laws and death penalty but I am going to do it any way cause you don't scare me none, so whatchya gonna do about it if I go ahead and break every Sabbath law."
7. Some Israelites had already broken the Sabbath institution before it became a law by going out to try to find manna on the Sabbath day. God had told them they would only get manna 6 days and their going out was not only disobedience but it wasn't trusting the fact that there would be no food to gather on Sabbath day. He reproved the people and punished no one. The people went back to the Sabbath observance. (Ex. 16:21-30.) The laws of the Sabbath were then enacted as noted above.
8. Additionally there was an overarching principle that if anyone did anything for the sole purpose of showing deliberate rejection and profanation of the laws of God they were to be put to death. This was treated as a mutinous and traitorous act. But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.” (Numbers 15:30-31)
9. The congregation discovered the man and brought him to the Lord asking how he should be put to death. The community agreed that this man deserved death and they wanted to know from God how to do it. Stoning was chosen because it would be a corporate punishment and corporate example. (Numbers 15).
10. In looking back at all this history of Israel the Psalmist writes in Psalm 145 the following:
One generation shall praise thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts.
And men shall speak of the might of thy terrible (or awesome) acts: and I will declare thy greatness.
The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works
So the Psalmist in recalling the goodness and mercy of God in the past is also including all His works and all His terrible/awesome acts. He is writing after the kingdom is established and prosperous and is looking back at their history. Rather than seeing the punishment of the man on the sabbath as a contradiction to God's mercy He saw it as a demonstration of God's mercy in giving them laws and order which helped to keep them a stable and God-fearing society and purging them from mutinous traitors.
To say that there is contradiction here is completely untenable because the author deliberately included this act in His praise of God's mercy and care for them--when He said his tender mercies are over all his works. In a situation like this God's mercy is extended to the corporate group by purging the high handed sinner who simply would find another opportunity to do it again and probably influence others the same. This should not be a hard to understand as a principle.
Luke 14:5 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. 2And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. 3And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? 4And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; 5And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? 6And they could not answer him again to these things.
Moving on to a comparative study between the Testaments and noticing first their unifying points and then we will note their divergences.
A unifying moral foundation: 1. The OT is made up of civil laws, ceremonial or Jewish religious laws, and a foundational moral code of 10 commandments. The civil and ceremonial laws were abrogated by the NT teachings while the moral code is affirmed by the NT as still being in effect and with universal application. This moral code is the basis of the covenant between God and Israel and also the basis of universal morality for a law of nations. Israel: Ex.34:27-28, The LORD also said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” So Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments
NT Affirmations of the moral code
Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Certainly not! Instead, we uphold the law. Rom.3:31 What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” Rom.8:7 Be indebted to no one, except to one another in love, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”a and any other commandments, are summed up in this one decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Rom.13:8-10
Antelope Sniper I will sit tight on this point and not move on till you comment on when you are ready. I saved the moral code you posted for future reference.
Luke 14:5 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. 2And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. 3And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? 4And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; 5And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? 6And they could not answer him again to these things.
Not really contradictory but would seem so.
Very good comment--example of NT change of OT ceremonial and civil law. The moral principle of the Sabbath remains but the Jewish civil and ceremonial applications are abrogated by Christ. I'm working on that now per you guys request. More to come as we go along.
I'm not aware of anything stated that way in the OT. We have something similar in "love your neighbor as yourself. " Is this the moral code that you would subscribe to and use as a test of morality?
Keep in mind, by "thy neighbor" the OT means other Jews.
Love other Jews as yourself, but buy your slaves from the Heathen around you.
No, it doesn't.
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
[b]36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Your excuses do not begin to justify killing some one for gathering sticks on any day.
Just so we are clear. I am not trying to give you an acceptable answer. I make no excuses for what God had a right to do. I make no excuses for how He chooses to punish now or for all eternity. He will do what is right without our consent. I am only giving a logical explanation that shows there is no contradiction in the biblical record. But logic won't do for someone who wishes to insert their own arbitrary morals into the equation. You guys didn't want to give your moral code but you can't refrain from arbitrary judgement.
And of course In Assyria anyone flagrantly disobeying would have likely been tortured before being executed. The family would also likely have suffered a similar fate. But we don't want to recognize how Gods laws for those times were moving the world to better morals. It's easier just to insert our own arbitrary judgement.
Have you considered seeing how the group consensus morals posted by AS would apply? On the basis of those morals the corporate agreement required a punishment.
Your excuses do not begin to justify killing some one for gathering sticks on any day.
Oh, ye of little no faith.
I have a strong faith, a firm belief that those who claim their faith is some kind of Biblical proof are dead wrong. Years ago when I first learned of Deism, I was rather pleased with myself that I had already reached that point more or less on my own. With Deism I found myself in good company.
Deism strikes me as a "so near, yet so far", kind of thing dreamed up by intellectuals who knew there was a God, Who also was the Creator of all, but could not acknowledge or see God working among His creation. I can tell you He does.
In my belief, I am not wrong, and neither will I be dead.
Your excuses do not begin to justify killing some one for gathering sticks on any day.
Oh, ye of little no faith.
I have a strong faith, a firm belief that those who claim their faith is some kind of Biblical proof are dead wrong. Years ago when I first learned of Deism, I was rather pleased with myself that I had already reached that point more or less on my own. With Deism I found myself in good company.
How does one know for sure that there is a God but that He is detached from one true faith, morals, and future judgment.
Your excuses do not begin to justify killing some one for gathering sticks on any day.
Oh, ye of little no faith.
I have a strong faith, a firm belief that those who claim their faith is some kind of Biblical proof are dead wrong. Years ago when I first learned of Deism, I was rather pleased with myself that I had already reached that point more or less on my own. With Deism I found myself in good company.
How does one know for sure that there is a God but that He is detached from one true faith, morals, and future judgment.
Unlike you...I don't know for sure about anything that is based on faith.
“You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence.” Carl Sagan
We are not an experiment because God needs no experiment. He knows the outcome of all. But are a part of God's plan that will soon be revealed in these last days.
Your excuses do not begin to justify killing some one for gathering sticks on any day.
Oh, ye of little no faith.
I have a strong faith, a firm belief that those who claim their faith is some kind of Biblical proof are dead wrong. Years ago when I first learned of Deism, I was rather pleased with myself that I had already reached that point more or less on my own. With Deism I found myself in good company.
How does one know for sure that there is a God but that He is detached from one true faith, morals, and future judgment.
Unlike you...I don't know for sure about anything that is based on faith.
“You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence.” Carl Sagan
BS. No experiment. Iirc, He prophesied all about its future.
Your excuses do not begin to justify killing some one for gathering sticks on any day.
Oh, ye of little no faith.
I have a strong faith, a firm belief that those who claim their faith is some kind of Biblical proof are dead wrong. Years ago when I first learned of Deism, I was rather pleased with myself that I had already reached that point more or less on my own. With Deism I found myself in good company.
How does one know for sure that there is a God but that He is detached from one true faith, morals, and future judgment.
I can only speak for myself but would have to say that you don't know,for sure. You have to go with what seems most likely to you, with what you find beleiveable. I look around at the multitude of beliefs and faiths a sacred scriptures, each one different and each one equally sure that they have it right, and it seems most likely to me that nobody has it right. Maybe some have more pieces right than others, but I see man's dirty fingerprints on all of them.
I agree with you. Some ideas can only be understood by some one who wants to understand.
“You can lead a horse to new ideas, but you can’t make him think”
Tragic.
You realize that this works both way?
Each believer utterly convinced that they have the truth while all who disagree must be wrong, Hindus, Muslims, Jews Christians and all their various sects and groups, but cannot see that truth.
That there are contradictions in the bible is undeniable, unless the believer is using their own special definition of the term 'contradiction'
God for instance, cannot be described as 'good to all' and showing 'tender mercy' yet order a man killed for gathering sticks on a Sabbath.....which is neither a case of tender mercy or showing goodness toward the man gathering sticks.
It is a clear contradiction that no degree of denial can change.
Let's look at the alleged contradiction from a chronological perspective now: The alleged contradiction (with it's inserted moral conclusions in that do not reference any moral code) is:
Quote
1)God is good to all 2)God kills a man for gathering sticks. 3)God showed no goodness toward that man 4)The Lord is a God of tender mercy. 5) The Lord did not show any mercy for a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath.
God is good to all/God was not good toward the gatherer of sticks'
The lord is a God of tender mercy/ The Lord showed no mercy for a trivial offense.
1. God created the world and Instituted a Sabbath day of rest and sanctification Gen.22,3
2. God through Moses gave laws regarding the observance of the Sabbath to uphold the creation institution. a. The Sabbath was one of the Ten Commandments -- a mandatory day of rest and spiritual focus for every living thing in the nation: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Ex 20:8–11).
The whole congregation was gathered together and the law and the death penalty were stated: Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do.Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. (Ex 35:1–2).
No fires were to be kindled in the home: You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” (Ex 35:3). This obviously means that you would not be gathering sticks for a fire.
No cooking was allowed from evening to evening--the family had to prepare their food the day before, for everyone to be able to remember God's goodness and to enjoy the creative fruits of the week before (as God did on the original Sabbath): On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, 23 he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’ ” 24 So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. 25 Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.” (Ex 16:22–26).
No food gathering was allowed and no one was supposed to be outside their dwelling (for work): The LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day. (Ex 16:29–30).
3. The Sabbath observance is given as the central sign of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. And the LORD said to Moses, 13 “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. (Ex 31:12–13; cf Ezek 20.12: Moreover, I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them. )
5. To violate this central mandate was a capital offense (stated over and over and over): You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. (Ex 31:14–16).
6. So the man who gathers sticks knows about the laws of the Sabbath and the death penalty related to breaking it. He deliberately broke it a way to flaunt each of the precepts regarding the Sabbath: a.) he went out when he was to remain inside, b.) he gathered sticks for a fire which he was not to make c.) he intended to cook a meal d.) he was showing blatant disregard for what everyone knew and practiced and what he knew was important to their faith and practice. d.) ultimately he was rejecting God and God's people and the established sign of their relationship.
Essentially it was an act of "Yea I know about all the laws and death penalty but I am going to do it any way cause you don't scare me none, so whatchya gonna do about it if I go ahead and break every Sabbath law."
7. Some Israelites had already broken the Sabbath institution before it became a law by going out to try to find manna on the Sabbath day. God had told them they would only get manna 6 days and their going out was not only disobedience but it wasn't trusting the fact that there would be no food to gather on Sabbath day. He reproved the people and punished no one. The people went back to the Sabbath observance. (Ex. 16:21-30.) The laws of the Sabbath were then enacted as noted above.
8. Additionally there was an overarching principle that if anyone did anything for the sole purpose of showing deliberate rejection and profanation of the laws of God they were to be put to death. This was treated as a mutinous and traitorous act. But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.” (Numbers 15:30-31)
9. The congregation discovered the man and brought him to the Lord asking how he should be put to death. The community agreed that this man deserved death and they wanted to know from God how to do it. Stoning was chosen because it would be a corporate punishment and corporate example. (Numbers 15).
10. In looking back at all this history of Israel the Psalmist writes in Psalm 145 the following:
One generation shall praise thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts.
And men shall speak of the might of thy terrible (or awesome) acts: and I will declare thy greatness.
The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works
So the Psalmist in recalling the goodness and mercy of God in the past is also including all His works and all His terrible/awesome acts. He is writing after the kingdom is established and prosperous and is looking back at their history. Rather than seeing the punishment of the man on the sabbath as a contradiction to God's mercy He saw it as a demonstration of God's mercy in giving them laws and order which helped to keep them a stable and God-fearing society and purging them from mutinous traitors.
To say that there is contradiction here is completely untenable because the author deliberately included this act in His praise of God's mercy and care for them--when He said his tender mercies are over all his works. In a situation like this God's mercy is extended to the corporate group by purging the high handed sinner who simply would find another opportunity to do it again and probably influence others the same. This should not be a hard to understand as a principle.
A fine testament to the art of denial.
There is nothing, for example, to suggest what the circumstances by which the man gathering sticks happened to be. You are making an assumption of 'deliberate disobedience' when the narrative does not say that.
Not that it makes any difference, gathering sticks on a day of rest is hardly a capital offense in any sense of justice, and to have a the man executed, stoned to death in public, is neither just or merciful.
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Which clearly and unequivocally contradicts the descriptions of God as Love and tender mercy;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Tell that to the man who was killed for the simple act of gathering sticks on the 'day of rest' - point out that God is Love and love protects and is forgiving.
So, you do not understand.... or accept .... that the gathering of sticks is not the issue.
Can you not see that?
The transgression would be the deliberate and willful disobedience..... the issue of sticking the finger up.
I regard a certain amount of hardheadedness as a virtue, but.....Do you really not see that or are you just hard headed to the max?
Whether it was deliberate or not, it doesn't specify, the sentence and act of killing far exceeds the assumed crime of disobedience, which in turn contradicts the descriptions of God as being merciful. There is no mercy shown.
I'm not aware of anything stated that way in the OT. We have something similar in "love your neighbor as yourself. " Is this the moral code that you would subscribe to and use as a test of morality?
Keep in mind, by "thy neighbor" the OT means other Jews.
Love other Jews as yourself, but buy your slaves from the Heathen around you.
No, it doesn't.
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
[b]36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
You overlook the discrepancies between the old testament and the new. God is not even the same between the OT and the NT.
Not that it makes any difference, gathering sticks on a day of rest is hardly a capital offense in any sense of justice, and to have a the man executed, stoned to death in public, is neither just or merciful.
Now you're substituting your sense of justice for that of the people to whom the writing was addressed.
And I don't think you need any particular set of beliefs to understand the bible. That's why God invented Philosophy, to discuss matters in a structured manner (logic) without prejudice (unstated a priori assumptions).
Yes of course you can have personal morals without writing them down. But unless they are based on something that can be written down they are worthless. Additionally, if you are going to do a moral analysis from a moral benchmark you need to write them down so everyone can see the moral benchmark. My code is written, but no skeptics have provided their code by which they are making moral observations and judgments.
And yes as you note no skeptic here seems willing to provide a written moral code that they will stand by. That is a very evident sign of the weakness of their system and why moral discussions with them are often unproductive. I did not ask for belief in deity, I asked for a written moral code for reference.
I'm still waiting for that--lacking that there is no moral foundation in skepticism and no means by which a skeptic can consider themselves a moral person.
Do you have a moral code that you ascribe to? Is it written or can it be written? Does anyone else use it or is it just your personal opinion? [/quote]
I am not sure that the skeptics are unwilling to provide a written moral code, more like they simply do not feel the need. My moral code is written all over the place. No single document, but mostly learned with the way my parents raised me. For example, I learned honesty and fair treatment from my mother. I learned integrity from my father. I spent a career in the Army and they do have written values that I follow. Other than that, I don't feel the need to provide written proof of the moral code that I live by. I demonstrate each and every day by the way I live my life. My family and friends can testify if necessary. Of course thats hard for folks to see in a forum such as this.
We are not an experiment because God needs no experiment. He knows the outcome of all. But are a part of God's plan that will soon be revealed in these last days.
most days, i tend to hope you are correct.
but usually i think we are an experiment.
i'm some 2 percent neanderthal.
my african friends are none.
there's nothing wrong w/god experimenting a little.
we're on the way to the moon, yet again. and it might succeed?
if not, i'm sure we'll try again and again.
if jesus had been a bit more compassionate, and der debil a bit more meaner spirited?
would we be better off with that combi, or is the current combi safisfactory or optimal?
..... With no understanding in place you guys are all making random potshots....
When you say ''no understanding in place'' you actually mean your interpretation, an interpretation that ignores or dismisses what the verses actually say by imposing your own meaning, your own rules.
That has been your ploy all along.
Christians allow themselves such a wide range of ambiguous and subjective beliefs that they conveniently self-merit as their faith. thus billions of self-professed christians whos opinions vary and conflict, some claim as evidence based, while others no evidence is required for faith.
they cannot all be infused with the Holy Spirit and be receiving different understandings as they do., cause that would make God a poor communicator.
50,000 church organisations containing members that can all each have their personal own variation of spin.
Originally Posted by DBT
Based on what you write, you ignore anything that looks like a contradiction or a problem or order to maintain the preferred version,...
You're trying to impose your own conditions onto me as way of deflection from the actual issues.
The only thing that matters to A Christian is their own personal belief no matter how merited or unmerited it may be. what they often display is their ego , masking it as their faith.
So with this alleged contradiction shown to be another contrived attempt that fails we move on ...
The excuse that ordering a killing, public stoning no less, is an act of love and compassion is contrived . There lies the contradiction....what happened to 'let those without sin cast the first stone?'
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
..... With no understanding in place you guys are all making random potshots....
When you say ''no understanding in place'' you actually mean your interpretation, an interpretation that ignores or dismisses what the verses actually say by imposing your own meaning, your own rules.
That has been your ploy all along.
Christians allow themselves such a wide range of ambiguous and subjective beliefs that they conveniently self-merit as their faith. thus billions of self-professed christians whos opinions vary and conflict, some claim as evidence based, while others no evidence is required for faith.
they cannot all be infused with the Holy Spirit and be receiving different understandings as they do., cause that would make God a poor communicator.
50,000 church organisations containing members that can all each have their personal own variation of spin.
actually, that's a good point.
kinda reminds me of meteorology.
the weather forecast all depends:
humidity, wind direction & strenght, elevation, location, temperature, season, angle of the urth, etc.
the ocean is a vast reservoir of energy. and of course the winds blow from high to low, right?
once the truth leaves the mouth of the speaker, the words become disseminated far & wide.
and so here we are. we've heard what we thought was the word, as our ears allow.
Yes of course you can have personal morals without writing them down. But unless they are based on something that can be written down they are worthless. Additionally, if you are going to do a moral analysis from a moral benchmark you need to write them down so everyone can see the moral benchmark. My code is written, but no skeptics have provided their code by which they are making moral observations and judgments.
And yes as you note no skeptic here seems willing to provide a written moral code that they will stand by. That is a very evident sign of the weakness of their system and why moral discussions with them are often unproductive. I did not ask for belief in deity, I asked for a written moral code for reference.
I'm still waiting for that--lacking that there is no moral foundation in skepticism and no means by which a skeptic can consider themselves a moral person.
Do you have a moral code that you ascribe to? Is it written or can it be written? Does anyone else use it or is it just your personal opinion?
I am not sure that the skeptics are unwilling to provide a written moral code, more like they simply do not feel the need. My moral code is written all over the place. No single document, but mostly learned with the way my parents raised me. For example, I learned honesty and fair treatment from my mother. I learned integrity from my father. I spent a career in the Army and they do have written values that I follow. Other than that, I don't feel the need to provide written proof of the moral code that I live by. I demonstrate each and every day by the way I live my life. My family and friends can testify if necessary. Of course thats hard for folks to see in a forum such as this. [/quote]
As you note we cannot see your morals so unless you are willing to offer them in written form we don't know what they are and we don't know if they will change to suit the discussion.
We are not an experiment because God needs no experiment. He knows the outcome of all. But are a part of God's plan that will soon be revealed in these last days.
Yes of course you can have personal morals without writing them down. But unless they are based on something that can be written down they are worthless. Additionally, if you are going to do a moral analysis from a moral benchmark you need to write them down so everyone can see the moral benchmark. My code is written, but no skeptics have provided their code by which they are making moral observations and judgments.
And yes as you note no skeptic here seems willing to provide a written moral code that they will stand by. That is a very evident sign of the weakness of their system and why moral discussions with them are often unproductive. I did not ask for belief in deity, I asked for a written moral code for reference.
I'm still waiting for that--lacking that there is no moral foundation in skepticism and no means by which a skeptic can consider themselves a moral person.
Do you have a moral code that you ascribe to? Is it written or can it be written? Does anyone else use it or is it just your personal opinion?
I am not sure that the skeptics are unwilling to provide a written moral code, more like they simply do not feel the need. My moral code is written all over the place. No single document, but mostly learned with the way my parents raised me. For example, I learned honesty and fair treatment from my mother. I learned integrity from my father. I spent a career in the Army and they do have written values that I follow. Other than that, I don't feel the need to provide written proof of the moral code that I live by. I demonstrate each and every day by the way I live my life. My family and friends can testify if necessary. Of course thats hard for folks to see in a forum such as this. [/quote]
That's right, the issue here is not the ethics of the sceptic but the standard of ethics as defined the bible...also described being broken in the bible.
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
We are not an experiment because God needs no experiment. He knows the outcome of all. But are a part of God's plan that will soon be revealed in these last days.
most days, i tend to hope you are correct.
And then there are days... I'm with ya Gus.
my personal opinion, and only my opinion is that we've got something going on here that is more complex than our legitimate but weak efforts to explain it.
ghengkis khan was quite the leader,
and on and on, ad infinitum.
here we are. i like the idea of a higher power.
but, to the contrary, i'm not much into higher value kings & queens.
and now the arguments are beginning to unfold as to the electoral college.
things are on the move, for sure. i'm glad we have this forum available for discussion.
having an opportunity to discuss various ideologies and not being shot is a good thing, yes?
Not that it makes any difference, gathering sticks on a day of rest is hardly a capital offense in any sense of justice, and to have a the man executed, stoned to death in public, is neither just or merciful.
Now you're substituting your sense of justice for that of the people to whom the writing was addressed.
And I don't think you need any particular set of beliefs to understand the bible. That's why God invented Philosophy, to discuss matters in a structured manner (logic) without prejudice (unstated a priori assumptions).
My sense of justice is not necessary. The bible itself speaks of justice, itself describing God as compassionate, merciful, etc....so as a comparison, human parents who do not have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience, wagging school/ gathering sticks on a day of rest, are infinitely more compassionate than the Creator of the universe, a God of infinite love and compassion?
So with this alleged contradiction shown to be another contrived attempt that fails we move on ...
The excuse that ordering a killing, public stoning no less, is an act of love and compassion is contrived . There lies the contradiction....what happened to 'let those without sin cast the first stone?'
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
Yep.
Everyone who speeds 5mph over the limit should be executed......at least according to Thunderstick.....because that would be love in the face of disobedience.....
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
So your god is not better than the petty jealous kings of that day!
There is nothing, for example, to suggest what the circumstances by which the man gathering sticks happened to be. You are making an assumption of 'deliberate disobedience' when the narrative does not say that.
Not that it makes any difference, gathering sticks on a day of rest is hardly a capital offense in any sense of justice, and to have a the man executed, stoned to death in public, is neither just or merciful.
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Which clearly and unequivocally contradicts the descriptions of God as Love and tender mercy;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Tell that to the man who was killed for the simple act of gathering sticks on the 'day of rest' - point out that God is Love and love protects and is forgiving.
And so your apologetic fails.
My friend if you read all the verses with a little less emotion maybe you will see that the information describing the act of disobedience is exactly what was forbidden in the law.
Then you moralize and say that gathering sticks is not a capital offense. You earlier said repeatedly that morals have nothing to do with this evaluation it was only a comparative contradiction of the text. But you cannot keep yourself from moralizing by a standard of judgment which did not even exist in that time. Furthermore you overlook the fact that this guy knew about the law and agreed to obey the covenant law of the Sabbath as part of the promise of the covenant group to God.Where is your modern consensus morality now? You are not being consistent with any moral code but your own that you are making up as we discuss the subject.
The issue is not about gathering sticks per se but a deliberate attempt to despise God and His people and to break the covenant promise.
Think about this logically for a minute in another context ...if a traitor goes out to gather sticks and arranges them in a way to signal information to an enemy in a time of war and was caught and hung as a traitor was he really punished for playing with sticks or for betraying his country? Could he really say all I was doing was gathering sticks? Would the country become unmerciful if they hung a traitor? Would this make them an evil country? Or would the purging of the traitor be an act of mercy to the country? This is what is going on here.
Quote
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Lol you really can't stop moralizing from your own arbitrary judgment and focus on the alleged contradiction between the two texts you originally quoted. You have broken your own rules. How many times have you said your morals have nothing to do with this and yet when you cannot logically prove the contradiction you go back to your arbitrary moralizing.
Originally you stated there was a contradiction between two OT passages now you introduce two new NT passages to try to prove the contradiction. The NT was not in the original alleged contradiction. We all know there are differences in conduct between the testaments. Going to the NT to prove you point is a clear indication that you lost your original case of an OT discrepancy.
The simple logic of a Psalmist looking back on history (which includes this event) and saying that God's mercy is over all His works is not introducing a discrepancy. This chronology proves that there never was a contradiction because the statement was made that included the event which were part of all of God's works. You are using someone's words and intentions to mean the exact opposite of their meaning and intention. Your methodology of debate invalidates the credibility of your arguments--in addition to the fact that they are baseless.
So with this alleged contradiction shown to be another contrived attempt that fails we move on ...
The excuse that ordering a killing, public stoning no less, is an act of love and compassion is contrived . There lies the contradiction....what happened to 'let those without sin cast the first stone?'
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
Yep.
Everyone who speeds 5mph over the limit should be executed......at least according to Thunderstick.....because that would be love in the face of disobedience.....
Well if the whole country agreed to abide by a capital punishment for crime that represented being a traitor would it be wrong for the country to carry out what they said they would do?
See you cannot stick to the text and context to prove the alleged contradiction--you have to restructure the case and insert your own morals into it and make a judgment. We are seeing a pattern with skeptics and their ability to be logically consistent and objective.
You overlook the discrepancies between the old testament and the new. God is not even the same between the OT and the NT.
This is just too good ... You say there are differences between the OT and NT and we agree. But in a previous post you introduce two NT passage to try to prove a contradiction with the OT passage of punishing a man for gathering sticks. You are trying to correct someone else for doing what you have done yourself.
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
So your god is not better than the petty jealous kings of that day!
Again you are moralizing by making what is described as a serious offense a trivial matter. The original contradiction said it was merely a contradiction between texts in the OT. When you can't sustain the allegation you recast the context and insert your moral values.
There is nothing, for example, to suggest what the circumstances by which the man gathering sticks happened to be. You are making an assumption of 'deliberate disobedience' when the narrative does not say that.
Not that it makes any difference, gathering sticks on a day of rest is hardly a capital offense in any sense of justice, and to have a the man executed, stoned to death in public, is neither just or merciful.
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Which clearly and unequivocally contradicts the descriptions of God as Love and tender mercy;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Tell that to the man who was killed for the simple act of gathering sticks on the 'day of rest' - point out that God is Love and love protects and is forgiving.
And so your apologetic fails.
My friend if you read all the verses with a little less emotion maybe you will see that the information describing the act of disobedience is exactly what was forbidden in the law.
Then you moralize and say that gathering sticks is not a capital offense. You earlier said repeatedly that morals have nothing to do with this evaluation it was only a comparative contradiction of the text. But you cannot keep yourself from moralizing by a standard of judgment which did not even exist in that time. Furthermore you overlook the fact that this guy knew about the law and agreed to obey the covenant law of the Sabbath as part of the promise of the covenant group to God.Where is your modern consensus morality now? You are not being consistent with any moral code but your own that you are making up as we discuss the subject.
The issue is not about gathering sticks per se but a deliberate attempt to despise God and His people and to break the covenant promise.
Think about this logically for a minute in another context ...if a traitor goes out to gather sticks and arranges them in a way to signal information to an enemy in a time of war and was caught and hung as a traitor was he really punished for playing with sticks or for betraying his country? Could he really say all I was doing was gathering sticks? Would the country become unmerciful if they hung a traitor? Would this make them an evil country? Or would the purging of the traitor be an act of mercy to the country? This is what is going on here.
Quote
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Lol you really can't stop moralizing from your own arbitrary judgment and focus on the alleged contradiction between the two texts you originally quoted. You have broken your own rules. How many times have you said your morals have nothing to do with this and yet when you cannot logically prove the contradiction you go back to your arbitrary moralizing.
Originally you stated there was a contradiction between two OT passages now you introduce two new NT passages to try to prove the contradiction. The NT was not in the original alleged contradiction. We all know there are differences in conduct between the testaments. Going to the NT to prove you point is a clear indication that you lost your original case of an OT discrepancy.
The simple logic of a Psalmist looking back on history (which includes this event) and saying that God's mercy is over all His works is not introducing a discrepancy. This chronology proves that there never was a contradiction because the statement was made that included the event which were part of all of God's works. You are using someone's words and intentions to mean the exact opposite of their meaning and intention. Your methodology of debate invalidates the credibility of your arguments--in addition to the fact that they are baseless.
It has nothing to do with 'reading with emotion' - your remark being a shallow dismissal of the problem being pointed out.
The problem being, once again, that the bible itself gives descriptions of its god as loving, kind and compassionate, yet describes god as cruel and vindictive.
If one is true, by the rules of logic, the other must be false.
Both cannot be true unless God is Bipolar, unpredictably flipping between opposites.
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
So your god is not better than the petty jealous kings of that day!
Again you are moralizing by making what is described as a serious offense a trivial matter. The original contradiction said it was merely a contradiction between texts in the OT. When you can't sustain the allegation you recast the context and insert your moral values.
First off, IT IS A TRIVIAL OFFENSE. You're the one willing to execute people for trivial offenses and call it love because your god is in capable of providing direction better than the common moral of a given time.
So with this alleged contradiction shown to be another contrived attempt that fails we move on ...
The excuse that ordering a killing, public stoning no less, is an act of love and compassion is contrived . There lies the contradiction....what happened to 'let those without sin cast the first stone?'
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
Another example of introducing a NT text into a case where there was an alleged contradiction between two OT texts. You can't stay within the confines of your own contradiction. I think we all understand that Jesus abrogated the civil laws of the OT.
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
So your god is not better than the petty jealous kings of that day!
Again you are moralizing by making what is described as a serious offense a trivial matter. The original contradiction said it was merely a contradiction between texts in the OT. When you can't sustain the allegation you recast the context and insert your moral values.
First off, IT IS A TRIVIAL OFFENSE. You're the one willing to execute people for trivial offenses and call it love because your god is in capable of providing direction better than the common moral of a given time.
Is this not another example of a moral statement when you said personal morals have nothing to do with the noted contradiction? I drew you guys out deliberately to hear you declare that your morals had nothing to do with the contradiction and that it was only an objective discrepancy with the texts. I was quite sure you would not stick to your own promises.
You overlook the discrepancies between the old testament and the new. God is not even the same between the OT and the NT.
This is just too good ... You say there are differences between the OT and NT and we agree. But in a previous post you introduce two NT passage to try to prove a contradiction with the OT passage of punishing a man for gathering sticks. You are trying to correct someone else for doing what you have done yourself.
I am only focussing on the contradiction between the OT and the NT to avoid getting bogged down in the much broader issue of contradictions in the NT, contradictions in the OT and contradictions between the two.
There is nothing, for example, to suggest what the circumstances by which the man gathering sticks happened to be. You are making an assumption of 'deliberate disobedience' when the narrative does not say that.
Not that it makes any difference, gathering sticks on a day of rest is hardly a capital offense in any sense of justice, and to have a the man executed, stoned to death in public, is neither just or merciful.
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Which clearly and unequivocally contradicts the descriptions of God as Love and tender mercy;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Tell that to the man who was killed for the simple act of gathering sticks on the 'day of rest' - point out that God is Love and love protects and is forgiving.
And so your apologetic fails.
My friend if you read all the verses with a little less emotion maybe you will see that the information describing the act of disobedience is exactly what was forbidden in the law.
Then you moralize and say that gathering sticks is not a capital offense. You earlier said repeatedly that morals have nothing to do with this evaluation it was only a comparative contradiction of the text. But you cannot keep yourself from moralizing by a standard of judgment which did not even exist in that time. Furthermore you overlook the fact that this guy knew about the law and agreed to obey the covenant law of the Sabbath as part of the promise of the covenant group to God.Where is your modern consensus morality now? You are not being consistent with any moral code but your own that you are making up as we discuss the subject.
The issue is not about gathering sticks per se but a deliberate attempt to despise God and His people and to break the covenant promise.
Think about this logically for a minute in another context ...if a traitor goes out to gather sticks and arranges them in a way to signal information to an enemy in a time of war and was caught and hung as a traitor was he really punished for playing with sticks or for betraying his country? Could he really say all I was doing was gathering sticks? Would the country become unmerciful if they hung a traitor? Would this make them an evil country? Or would the purging of the traitor be an act of mercy to the country? This is what is going on here.
Quote
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Lol you really can't stop moralizing from your own arbitrary judgment and focus on the alleged contradiction between the two texts you originally quoted. You have broken your own rules. How many times have you said your morals have nothing to do with this and yet when you cannot logically prove the contradiction you go back to your arbitrary moralizing.
Originally you stated there was a contradiction between two OT passages now you introduce two new NT passages to try to prove the contradiction. The NT was not in the original alleged contradiction. We all know there are differences in conduct between the testaments. Going to the NT to prove you point is a clear indication that you lost your original case of an OT discrepancy.
The simple logic of a Psalmist looking back on history (which includes this event) and saying that God's mercy is over all His works is not introducing a discrepancy. This chronology proves that there never was a contradiction because the statement was made that included the event which were part of all of God's works. You are using someone's words and intentions to mean the exact opposite of their meaning and intention. Your methodology of debate invalidates the credibility of your arguments--in addition to the fact that they are baseless.
It has nothing to do with 'reading with emotion' - your remark being a shallow dismissal of the problem being pointed out.
The problem being, once again, that the bible itself gives descriptions of its god as loving, kind and compassionate, yet describes god as cruel and vindictive.
If one is true, by the rules of logic, the other must be false.
Both cannot be true unless God is Bipolar, unpredictably flipping between opposites.
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
There is nothing, for example, to suggest what the circumstances by which the man gathering sticks happened to be. You are making an assumption of 'deliberate disobedience' when the narrative does not say that.
Not that it makes any difference, gathering sticks on a day of rest is hardly a capital offense in any sense of justice, and to have a the man executed, stoned to death in public, is neither just or merciful.
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Which clearly and unequivocally contradicts the descriptions of God as Love and tender mercy;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Tell that to the man who was killed for the simple act of gathering sticks on the 'day of rest' - point out that God is Love and love protects and is forgiving.
And so your apologetic fails.
My friend if you read all the verses with a little less emotion maybe you will see that the information describing the act of disobedience is exactly what was forbidden in the law.
Then you moralize and say that gathering sticks is not a capital offense. You earlier said repeatedly that morals have nothing to do with this evaluation it was only a comparative contradiction of the text. But you cannot keep yourself from moralizing by a standard of judgment which did not even exist in that time. Furthermore you overlook the fact that this guy knew about the law and agreed to obey the covenant law of the Sabbath as part of the promise of the covenant group to God.Where is your modern consensus morality now? You are not being consistent with any moral code but your own that you are making up as we discuss the subject.
The issue is not about gathering sticks per se but a deliberate attempt to despise God and His people and to break the covenant promise.
Think about this logically for a minute in another context ...if a traitor goes out to gather sticks and arranges them in a way to signal information to an enemy in a time of war and was caught and hung as a traitor was he really punished for playing with sticks or for betraying his country? Could he really say all I was doing was gathering sticks? Would the country become unmerciful if they hung a traitor? Would this make them an evil country? Or would the purging of the traitor be an act of mercy to the country? This is what is going on here.
Quote
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.
Lol you really can't stop moralizing from your own arbitrary judgment and focus on the alleged contradiction between the two texts you originally quoted. You have broken your own rules. How many times have you said your morals have nothing to do with this and yet when you cannot logically prove the contradiction you go back to your arbitrary moralizing.
Originally you stated there was a contradiction between two OT passages now you introduce two new NT passages to try to prove the contradiction. The NT was not in the original alleged contradiction. We all know there are differences in conduct between the testaments. Going to the NT to prove you point is a clear indication that you lost your original case of an OT discrepancy.
The simple logic of a Psalmist looking back on history (which includes this event) and saying that God's mercy is over all His works is not introducing a discrepancy. This chronology proves that there never was a contradiction because the statement was made that included the event which were part of all of God's works. You are using someone's words and intentions to mean the exact opposite of their meaning and intention. Your methodology of debate invalidates the credibility of your arguments--in addition to the fact that they are baseless.
It has nothing to do with 'reading with emotion' - your remark being a shallow dismissal of the problem being pointed out.
The problem being, once again, that the bible itself gives descriptions of its god as loving, kind and compassionate, yet describes god as cruel and vindictive.
If one is true, by the rules of logic, the other must be false.
Both cannot be true unless God is Bipolar, unpredictably flipping between opposites.
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
i use to work w/a lady that said her god would reach down and pinch your head off even with your shoulders if you disabeyed. was she not a christian?
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do.
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do.
Not so. I am doing nothing more than pointing out what the bible says in terms of a God of Love and showing verses that contradict everything attributed to this 'God of Love' instead of 'love is kind' we are told that God curses generations for the sins of the ancestors. Instead of ''Love keeps no record of wrongs'' we have original sin, the whole world cursed for the naive action of one man, Adam. And that's just the start of the absurdity of the wholly contradictory collection of books we call the bible.
Not that it's just the bible that has problems The Quran is even worse. A sizable portion of the Quran is devoted to how to subjugate, kill or mistreat non believers in various ways. Mohammad the prophet was a killer, raider of caravans, a war lord, etc.
Identifying Contradictions ''Most people find it difficult to identify contradictions in an explicit way, but it is important to learn to do so. Here is an explicit definition of a contradiction together with the proper method for identifying one.
Contradiction Def.: To be logically committed to the assertion of some statement, S, and its denial, not-S, at the same time. ID.: Identify the statement that being both asserted and denied. To see how to identify contradictions properly, consider the following conversational example.
Mrs. Beeble: You have been absent from class 11 times this month. You fail. Goodbye. Butch: What? That's impossible! The class only meets twice a week. Mrs. Beeble: True, but you have missed it 11 times nevertheless. Butch: That doesn't make any sense. You can't be absent from a class on days that it doesn't meet. Mrs. Beeble: You're saying you weren't absent on those days? Butch: That's right.. Mrs. Beeble: So you were here? Butch: No! Mrs. Beeble: You are wasting my time. If you weren't here, then you were absent. Goodbye''
I'll repeat, defying God's command was not considered trivial in those days. And does anyone else think OT writers used literary devices such as allegory to get the point of their moral teachings across to the masses?
I'll repeat, defying God's command was not considered trivial in those days. And does anyone else think OT writers used literary devices such as allegory to get the point of their moral teachings across to the masses?
It doesn't matter what was or is considered be trivial or deadly serious, this issue purely and simply compares descriptions that the bible itself gives on the nature of God. The problem being that there are two opposing descriptions; one version is that of a god of love, merciful, forgiving not keeping a record of wrongs...the other we are told of a vindictive god, punishing four generations for the sins of the parents, the death penalty for minor transgressions, etc.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what you or I consider to be trivial, what your or my code of ethics happens to be. This is nothing more than what the bible itself describes.
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'
In opposition to.
so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes. (Proverbs 1:26)
"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11
''The Lord is a man of war'' Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
“You can lead a horse to new ideas, but you can’t make him think”
Tragic.
You realize that this works both way?
Each believer utterly convinced that they have the truth while all who disagree must be wrong, ...
TF49 not only contradicts other christians , he is also one of those self defeating types that will contradict himself. he's known for declaring that "It does not matter what YOU think or believe".
yet will follow up with irrelevant questions like ..
Originally Posted by TF49
Do you believe that God exists? Do you believe that Jesus was the Messiah?
then this...
Originally Posted by TF49
You or I can believe in error. One can think he is ok with God but in fact may not be. What God thinks about YOU is paramount.
I've asked how a Christian can know for certain what God actually thinks of them, but none can answer.
So for something they deem paramount, they actually don't have the slightest clue about. Essentially they are clutching around in the dark..but like to think of themselves as the 'light bearers of truth'
Oy vey! We showed how this stuff was not irreconcilable some posts back. Apples and oranges. The OT gives the law, and what happens if you don't follow it. The man with the sticks refused to follow the law and got the prescribed (therefore just) punishment. People of the time would have understood that, defy the King at your peril. Still true.
The NT is about redemption and forgiveness, what happens when you truly repent. Mary Magdelene sinned grievously and was due for stoning. She truly repented and Jesus forgave her in his love and mercy. Also a major lesson of the prodigal son story (though there are more in that parable).
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work.
I'll repeat, defying God's command was not considered trivial in those days. And does anyone else think OT writers used literary devices such as allegory to get the point of their moral teachings across to the masses?
So did this story literally true, or just an Aesop's fable?
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work.
Huh.....Thunderstick says you are wrong the the Big 10 were not cancelled.....
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work.
Huh.....Thunderstick says you are wrong the the Big 10 were not cancelled.....
Another contradiction between Christians.....
So, youre saying if mere humans interpret some things differently in the book composed by the all knowing Creator, there is no Creator?
It couldnt be that nuances in the Bible story are open to interpretation but the basic theme is correct in that all dont have to agree perfectly to be saved by being believers as He said?
You really do go overboard in stretching things to cover the board in your eye which He told us about.
I use Moble 1 and change the oil every 6,000 miles. Does that mean it wont get me to the lake and back?
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work.
Huh.....Thunderstick says you are wrong the the Big 10 were not cancelled.....
Another contradiction between Christians.....
Matthew 22:36-40 is true and applicable to believers in this age. The OT Law has not gone away and is ... in my opinion and in the opinion of many others .... still applicable to those who ignore and rebel against the greatest commandment.
There is no contradiction at all in this.
But, the skeptics here do not see nor understand this. Seems they cannot understand it.
The reason? They live in the darkness and rebel against their judgment based on a biblical standard. They want to be judged..... if there even is a judgment.... by their own internal standard. Nothing unusual here....very common....
So, to keep heads spinning and hearts a flutter.... what is difference between the stick collector guy busted for ignoring God and Rahab?
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
Well, you don’t understand. Here is a greatly condensed interpretation of Psalm 137...special focus on the “happy” verse...... not mine, but one that is credible.
Some think this is both a lament and prophecy..... against Babylon..... lament as the Jews were in captivity and a prophecy about the future fall of “Babylon.”
“Babylon” was indeed warlike and victimized people’s all around. It was much hated. It was overthrown and the destruction was “near total.”
Those that destroyed Babylon were indeed happy in delivering that defeat.
No issue with God. Just with those who claim the only place to find him is in the Christian Bible. And claim there are no problems with what was written in the Bible.
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work.
Huh.....Thunderstick says you are wrong the the Big 10 were not cancelled.....
Another contradiction between Christians.....
So, youre saying if mere humans interpret some things differently in the book composed by the all knowing Creator, there is no Creator?
It couldnt be that nuances in the Bible story are open to interpretation but the basic theme is correct in that all dont have to agree perfectly to be saved by being believers as He said?
You really do go overboard in stretching things to cover the board in your eye which He told us about.
I use Moble 1 and change the oil every 6,000 miles. Does that mean it wont get me to the lake and back?
You have yet to present any good evidence for you alleged God. Until such time there's no reason for me to accept you excuse of a nuisance god.
No issue with God. Just with those who claim the only place to find him is in the Christian Bible. And claim there are no problems with what was written in the Bible.
Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?
No issue with God. Just with those who claim the only place to find him is in the Christian Bible. And claim there are no problems with what was written in the Bible.
Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?
What about all those who don't use the Christian Bible?
For every Christian in the world there are two who are not.
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
Through the years thousands upon thousands have been executed for lesser heresies. And more than a 1000 years after Christ changed the laws.
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do.
I think many confuse being mean with being just. Justice may not seem kind to some transgressors in the short run.
"Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?"
Eh? I enjoy reading about this stuff but I have a question that may have already been discussed. What is in that Heaven that all you true believers are all dying to get into?
My best friend was trying to "save" me from Hell one day at the deer lease and I interrupted him when I saw a dead coon in road and asked "Did that coon go to Heaven when he died"? He said "Of course not! Animals don't go to Heaven!" My best friend is a good guy but he did go to a Christian school (brainwashing center) from grades 1-6. The brainwashing kicked in he started worrying about his mortality about age 70.
So what should all the "saved" people expect when they arrive expect when the arrive in Heaven TF49? I'm not talking about the pearly gates and all that Bible stuff. I mean the good stuff like having sex with your old girlfriends and things like that. Will they revert back to being young/hot and to me being young/handsome again?
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
I was taught from the cradle that violating the Sabbath was a Capitol Offence resulting in eternal death.
I was trained that when civil law requires one to break the Sabbath, one had better take the punishment handed down by the court, rather than face God's wrath.
As one of the commandments, the Sabbath is sacrosanct and the cornerstone of all that follows.
Oh, and the Sabbath is the seventh day, not the first.
But yes, punishing one man for breaking the Sabbath might be compared to a parent punishing one child for feeding poison to all of his siblings.
No issue with God. Just with those who claim the only place to find him is in the Christian Bible. And claim there are no problems with what was written in the Bible.
Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?
What about all those who don't use the Christian Bible?
For every Christian in the world there are two who are not.
Bowsinger,
You may want reconsider my question, do your own research here. The answer may surprise you.
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work.
Huh.....Thunderstick says you are wrong the the Big 10 were not cancelled.....
Another contradiction between Christians.....
So, youre saying if mere humans interpret some things differently in the book composed by the all knowing Creator, there is no Creator?
It couldnt be that nuances in the Bible story are open to interpretation but the basic theme is correct in that all dont have to agree perfectly to be saved by being believers as He said?
You really do go overboard in stretching things to cover the board in your eye which He told us about.
I use Moble 1 and change the oil every 6,000 miles. Does that mean it wont get me to the lake and back?
You have yet to present any good evidence for you alleged God. Until such time there's no reason for me to accept you excuse of a nuisance god.
I need none of this proof you seem psychologically addicted to. Its strange that you were a Bible student at one time and learned so many facets only to have evidently, or lyingly, missed a primary one and that being we are to accept by faith.
I expect you are aware of that, or should be after having been told so often, and only are disingenuous in your attempt to try and shift the narrative to one of Lucifers tenants.
You may be sure if I had proof i would not show it to you.
Hahaha. You tell God you want proof. Ask and you shall recieve. One day you will get that proof. There will be a great gnashing....
"Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?"
Eh? I enjoy reading about this stuff but I have a question that may have already been discussed. What is in that Heaven that all you true believers are all dying to get into?
My best friend was trying to "save" me from Hell one day at the deer lease and I interrupted him when I saw a dead coon in road and asked "Did that coon go to Heaven when he died"? He said "Of course not! Animals don't go to Heaven!" My best friend is a good guy but he did go to a Christian school (brainwashing center) from grades 1-6. The brainwashing kicked in he started worrying about his mortality about age 70.
So what should all the "saved" people expect when they arrive expect when the arrive in Heaven TF49? I'm not talking about the pearly gates and all that Bible stuff. I mean the good stuff like having sex with your old girlfriends and things like that. Will they revert back to being young/hot and to me being young/handsome again?
Arrive in Heaven! Be greeted by the Creator of the universe! No more sickness! Perfect health! No sin! Play 20 questions with a God!
Unfettered communion with Jesus!
Then, as we are being greeted by an infinite God, there will far more....more than I can imagine.
Gonna be good....exciting!
Oh, and if I need a break, stroll on down the streets of gold and over to the rib eye tree.....,
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work.
Huh.....Thunderstick says you are wrong the the Big 10 were not cancelled.....
Another contradiction between Christians.....
So, youre saying if mere humans interpret some things differently in the book composed by the all knowing Creator, there is no Creator?
It couldnt be that nuances in the Bible story are open to interpretation but the basic theme is correct in that all dont have to agree perfectly to be saved by being believers as He said?
You really do go overboard in stretching things to cover the board in your eye which He told us about.
I use Moble 1 and change the oil every 6,000 miles. Does that mean it wont get me to the lake and back?
You have yet to present any good evidence for you alleged God. Until such time there's no reason for me to accept you excuse of a nuisance god.
I need none of this proof you seem psychologically addicted to. Its strange that you were a Bible student at one time and learned so many facets only to have evidently, or lyingly, missed a primary one and that being we are to accept by faith.
I expect you are aware of that, or should be after having been told so often, and only are disingenuous in your attempt to try and shift the narrative to one of Lucifers tenants.
You may be sure if I had proof i would not show it to you.
Hahaha. You tell God you want proof. Ask and you shall recieve. One day you will get that proof. There will be a great gnashing....
Here's what's so funny.
I was told they had hundreds of proofs the Bible was true. When it turned out none could hold up to scrutiny, then they tried the Faith card.
Oh, we have no evidence, that doesn't matter, just believe it anyway!!
Outside of your religion, what else do you accept on Faith in in spite of evidence to the contrary?
"Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?"
Eh? I enjoy reading about this stuff but I have a question that may have already been discussed. What is in that Heaven that all you true believers are all dying to get into?
My best friend was trying to "save" me from Hell one day at the deer lease and I interrupted him when I saw a dead coon in road and asked "Did that coon go to Heaven when he died"? He said "Of course not! Animals don't go to Heaven!" My best friend is a good guy but he did go to a Christian school (brainwashing center) from grades 1-6. The brainwashing kicked in he started worrying about his mortality about age 70.
So what should all the "saved" people expect when they arrive expect when the arrive in Heaven TF49? I'm not talking about the pearly gates and all that Bible stuff. I mean the good stuff like having sex with your old girlfriends and things like that. Will they revert back to being young/hot and to me being young/handsome again?
Arrive in Heaven! Be greeted by the Creator of the universe! No more sickness! Perfect health! No sin! Play 20 questions with a God!
Unfettered communion with Jesus!
Then, as we are being greeted by an infinite God, there will far more....more than I can imagine.
Gonna be good....exciting!
Oh, and if I need a break, stroll on down the streets of gold and over to the rib eye tree.....,
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
Yep.
Thunderstick approves of dashing babies against the rocks.
No issue with God. Just with those who claim the only place to find him is in the Christian Bible. And claim there are no problems with what was written in the Bible.
Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?
What about all those who don't use the Christian Bible?
For every Christian in the world there are two who are not.
Bowsinger,
You may want reconsider my question, do your own research here. The answer may surprise you.
TF
I do not understand your question and the way you framed it "in the Bible"?
"Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?"
Eh? I enjoy reading about this stuff but I have a question that may have already been discussed. What is in that Heaven that all you true believers are all dying to get into?
My best friend was trying to "save" me from Hell one day at the deer lease and I interrupted him when I saw a dead coon in road and asked "Did that coon go to Heaven when he died"? He said "Of course not! Animals don't go to Heaven!" My best friend is a good guy but he did go to a Christian school (brainwashing center) from grades 1-6. The brainwashing kicked in he started worrying about his mortality about age 70.
So what should all the "saved" people expect when they arrive expect when the arrive in Heaven TF49? I'm not talking about the pearly gates and all that Bible stuff. I mean the good stuff like having sex with your old girlfriends and things like that. Will they revert back to being young/hot and to me being young/handsome again?
Arrive in Heaven! Be greeted by the Creator of the universe! No more sickness! Perfect health! No sin! Play 20 questions with a God!
Unfettered communion with Jesus!
Then, as we are being greeted by an infinite God, there will far more....more than I can imagine.
Gonna be good....exciting!
Oh, and if I need a break, stroll on down the streets of gold and over to the rib eye tree.....,
Not much of a description.
Does he get to bang that old girl friend or not?
Surely not a satisfying answer to one who is limited in view and can only imagine more of what he has already experienced.
Given a choice between the best that I can imagine or the best that God can imagine, I chose what God has in mind.
No issue with God. Just with those who claim the only place to find him is in the Christian Bible. And claim there are no problems with what was written in the Bible.
Ok, one issue at a time....in the Bible, are there any examples of someone “finding God”..... or “experiencing Jesus” ..... without the Bible?
What about all those who don't use the Christian Bible?
For every Christian in the world there are two who are not.
Bowsinger,
You may want reconsider my question, do your own research here. The answer may surprise you.
TF
I do not understand your question and the way you framed it "in the Bible"?
You probably have a Bible in your possession. Can you find someone in it that fits into the question?
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
Yep.
Thunderstick approves of dashing babies against the rocks.
Like I said, his religion broke his morality.
You don’t understand the psalm 137:9 issue either.
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
Yep.
Thunderstick approves of dashing babies against the rocks.
Like I said, his religion broke his morality.
Its essentially your buds on the left who kicked Christ out of our schools who are doing that now with late term abortions.
Oy vey! We showed how this stuff was not irreconcilable some posts back. Apples and oranges. The OT gives the law, and what happens if you don't follow it. The man with the sticks refused to follow the law and got the prescribed (therefore just) punishment. People of the time would have understood that, defy the King at your peril. Still true.
The NT is about redemption and forgiveness, what happens when you truly repent. Mary Magdelene sinned grievously and was due for stoning. She truly repented and Jesus forgave her in his love and mercy. Also a major lesson of the prodigal son story (though there are more in that parable).
No, sorry, the explanations that were offered did absolutely nothing to reconcile these contradictions. They were excuses rather than rational arguments.
Excuses made at the expense of ignoring what the verses actually say about the nature of love, not vindictive, does not keep a record, always forgiving in opposition to cruelty, vindictness, ready to condemn generations for the transgression of their forebears, etc.....glibly brushing the undeniable incompatibility aside with inane remarks like 'you need to understand the bible' 'you need to list your own moral code' etc. Which does nothing to address these contradictions.
If God is love and does not keep a record of wrongs, God cannot curse generations for the 'sins' of their fathers, for example.
It seems that believers are incapable of recognizing a contradiction when it comes to a matter of faith.
Sorry, but the excuses offered so far fail to make the grade.
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
Yep.
Thunderstick approves of dashing babies against the rocks.
Like I said, his religion broke his morality.
You don’t understand the psalm 137:9 issue either.
Half cocked and misdirected.
It is understood by sceptics, who have no emotional investment in the bible, but not by those who are. The filter of faith does not permit clarity of vision. Each believer being convinced of their own 'truth' while unwilling to consider other possibilities or that they may be mistaken.
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
I was taught from the cradle that violating the Sabbath was a Capitol Offence resulting in eternal death.
I was trained that when civil law requires one to break the Sabbath, one had better take the punishment handed down by the court, rather than face God's wrath.
As one of the commandments, the Sabbath is sacrosanct and the cornerstone of all that follows.
Oh, and the Sabbath is the seventh day, not the first.
But yes, punishing one man for breaking the Sabbath might be compared to a parent punishing one child for feeding poison to all of his siblings.
You would kill one of your own children for trivially breaking the Sabbath? Because by gathering his toys on the Sabbath he is poisoning the others toward the Laws of God?
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
The Bible does not say that God is cruel and vindictive in any of those passages. Furthermore it seems you don't understand the Biblical definition of agape love nor do you recognize that love needs to harmonize with His justice and holiness. You simply make up a definition of love and ignore His other attributes.God loved loved David dearly but He still punished Him for murder. You act as though love is mutually exclusive to justice or vengeance against sin--which it is not.
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do.
Not so. I am doing nothing more than pointing out what the bible says in terms of a God of Love and showing verses that contradict everything attributed to this 'God of Love' instead of 'love is kind' we are told that God curses generations for the sins of the ancestors. Instead of ''Love keeps no record of wrongs'' we have original sin, the whole world cursed for the naive action of one man, Adam. And that's just the start of the absurdity of the wholly contradictory collection of books we call the bible.
Not that it's just the bible that has problems The Quran is even worse. A sizable portion of the Quran is devoted to how to subjugate, kill or mistreat non believers in various ways. Mohammad the prophet was a killer, raider of caravans, a war lord, etc.
That's religion.
What is you belief system and what has it done for world?
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'
This is another example of you lack of Bible knowledge or context. 1Cor.13 is describing the characteristics that God asks of believer. This passage is not describing the attributes of God. God has said His ways are above our ways. He says we are not to avenge ourselves because vengeance belongs to Him. God can take a life when He pleases and we may not. You views and post demonstrate you Biblical illiteracy. Even when you are shown where you are logically in error you only response is to repeat the non sequitur.
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work.
Huh.....Thunderstick says you are wrong the the Big 10 were not cancelled.....
Another contradiction between Christians.....
God did not cancel the moral law of the 10 commandments as a moral standard, but He did cancel the death penalty it placed us under for sin when we believe in Christ. It is canceled as a way of righteousness as our righteouness comes now from Christ. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes. The teachings of Christ supersede the 10 commandments and they are fulfilled in loving God and our neighbor according to the gospel. The moral law still serves as guide for those who will not believe and obey the gospel. It still points out sin and morality but it will never save us. The gospel goes beyond the law and thus fulfills it. Whereas the law say we are not to commit adultery, Jesus exceeds that and say we are not lust after another woman. However the NT says the Law is still in effect as a moral guide for the unbeliever.
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,"
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do.
Not so. I am doing nothing more than pointing out what the bible says in terms of a God of Love and showing verses that contradict everything attributed to this 'God of Love' instead of 'love is kind' we are told that God curses generations for the sins of the ancestors. Instead of ''Love keeps no record of wrongs'' we have original sin, the whole world cursed for the naive action of one man, Adam. And that's just the start of the absurdity of the wholly contradictory collection of books we call the bible.
Not that it's just the bible that has problems The Quran is even worse. A sizable portion of the Quran is devoted to how to subjugate, kill or mistreat non believers in various ways. Mohammad the prophet was a killer, raider of caravans, a war lord, etc.
That's religion.
What is you belief system and what has it done for world?
Irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is not with me or what I happen to 'believe' but what is written in the bible. Trying to divert the focus of attention onto a poster, me in this instance, is a ploy.
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
There is a difference between the testaments--a clear difference but there is not contradiction--because the OT prophesied that Christ would come and establish a New Covenant and the New Testament indicates where things have changed. If both testaments are saying there was a change there is no contradiction. You are guys are too desperate to find contradictions and it's showing.
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do.
Not so. I am doing nothing more than pointing out what the bible says in terms of a God of Love and showing verses that contradict everything attributed to this 'God of Love' instead of 'love is kind' we are told that God curses generations for the sins of the ancestors. Instead of ''Love keeps no record of wrongs'' we have original sin, the whole world cursed for the naive action of one man, Adam. And that's just the start of the absurdity of the wholly contradictory collection of books we call the bible.
Not that it's just the bible that has problems The Quran is even worse. A sizable portion of the Quran is devoted to how to subjugate, kill or mistreat non believers in various ways. Mohammad the prophet was a killer, raider of caravans, a war lord, etc.
That's religion.
What is you belief system and what has it done for world?
Irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is not with me or what I happen to 'believe' but what is written in the bible. Trying to divert the focus of attention onto a poster, me in this instance, is a ploy.
Typical skeptic, quick to make false allegations about another person, but afraid to be credible enough to declare their own beliefs.
The OT laws were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus, which He fulfilled, including the law. Not a thing about the 10 commandments was eternal, as they didn’t exist until about 430 yrs after Abraham. They only lasted until Jesus’ arrival. The Big Ten were merely a shadow.....(long sigh)
The 10 commandments were a political treaty between Israel and God. Morality is not limited to the Big Ten. God didn’t need any help conveying moral law to us with crude stone tablets. Jesus (as through the Transfiguration), took the place of the stone tablets, and now we follow Jesus, not the old law. The 10 commandments were ceremonial law, not moral law, and were words from the old covenant.
Neither testament separates ceremonial law from moral law. One law is mentioned in Exo 12:49, Lev 7:7, Lev 14:22, Num 15:16, Num 15:29, Num 9:14, Num 15:15, Num 19:2, Num 31:21
Jesus fulfilled the law (Matt 5). Jesus fulfilled the 10 commandments, which were only temporary, as was the entire Jewish law. Gal 3:17-25 We now live in the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:7-18)
God wouldn’t given Israel 603 more laws if the Big Ten had been a morally complete set of laws. Strangely, those other 603 laws were not included in the Big Ten.
I was told they had hundreds of proofs the Bible was true. When it turned out none could hold up to scrutiny, then they tried the Faith card.
Oh, we have no evidence, that doesn't matter, just believe it anyway!!
Outside of your religion, what else do you accept on Faith in in spite of evidence to the contrary?
Be honest you were given a lot of historical and prophetic evidence. The bottom line is that you would reject Christ no matter how much evidence was presented.You're unbelief is not allowing you to be impartial.
Thunderstick approves of dashing babies against the rocks.
Like I said, his religion broke his morality.
Another example of biblical illiteracy and lack of looking at the context. Israel is wishing on Babylon what they have experienced. This was in the day of an eye for an eye. We are not under that moral code any more so it would not be right.
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
I was taught from the cradle that violating the Sabbath was a Capitol Offence resulting in eternal death.
I was trained that when civil law requires one to break the Sabbath, one had better take the punishment handed down by the court, rather than face God's wrath.
As one of the commandments, the Sabbath is sacrosanct and the cornerstone of all that follows.
Oh, and the Sabbath is the seventh day, not the first.
But yes, punishing one man for breaking the Sabbath might be compared to a parent punishing one child for feeding poison to all of his siblings.
You would kill one of your own children for trivially breaking the Sabbath? Because by gathering his toys on the Sabbath he is poisoning the others toward the Laws of God?
We went from the OT to present and went from responsible adult who was deliberately being traitorous to a little child playing with toys. Can you provide more logically equivalent illustrations? This sounds like liberal news media.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
Would you support hanging a traitor if they were using sticks in code to pass messages to the enemy or would you simply say it was a trivial offense no different than a child playing with toys?
No, sorry, the explanations that were offered did absolutely nothing to reconcile these contradictions. They were excuses rather than rational arguments.
The chronology of time and events and statements indicate that the Psalmist considered all of God previous works to be merciful. That is simply a fact, please explain how that is an excuse?
Quote
Excuses made at the expense of ignoring what the verses actually say about the nature of love, not vindictive, does not keep a record, always forgiving in opposition to cruelty, vindictness,
This is a NT verse that you brought in later after posting the contradiction. This being dishonest about how you framed the original contradiction. Furthermore those verses are referring to human conduct and not divine conduct. God does keep a record of all wrongs until they are repented of and they will all be on display at the final judgment.. However we are not God and it is not in our place to keep records of wrongs and to hold offenses against our brothers--we let that in God's hands.
Quote
ready to condemn generations for the transgression of their forebears, etc.....glibly brushing the undeniable incompatibility aside with inane remarks like 'you need to understand the bible' 'you need to list your own moral code' etc. Which does nothing to address these contradictions.
Explain how you can critique a document you don't understand. That would never fly in any other discipline so why would it here?
Quote
If God is love and does not keep a record of wrongs, God cannot curse generations for the 'sins' of their fathers, for example.
Again your lack of understanding and recognizing context as noted above--that passage is describing our conduct and not God's attributes. I should not need to explain the need to get the context right.
Quote
It seems that believers are incapable of recognizing a contradiction when it comes to a matter of faith.
None of those proposed would pass the test logical test of understood within the obvious context.
Quote
Sorry, but the excuses offered so far fail to make the grade.
[/quote]
We are not looking to pass your grade. We are only concerned with truth.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God?
First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.
Through the years thousands upon thousands have been executed for lesser heresies. And more than a 1000 years after Christ changed the laws.
Unfortunately this is true. This is an example of what happens when Christians do not follow the example of Christ.
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
There is a difference between the testaments--a clear difference but there is not contradiction--because the OT prophesied that Christ would come and establish a New Covenant and the New Testament indicates where things have changed. If both testaments are saying there was a change there is no contradiction. You are guys are too desperate to find contradictions and it's showing.
That's neither an explanation or a valid argument.....try to focus on the proposition that we are talking about a timeless God with timeless values, which means that It's not OK to kill someone for a minor transgression at any time or place..just because ancient people had hard lives and were cruel is not an excuse for God to be portrayed in the same way, no better than the people of the time.
Unless of course we create our gods in our own image. Which, given the NT facelift, appears to be the case.
It is understood by sceptics, who have no emotional investment in the bible, but not by those who are. The filter of faith does not permit clarity of vision. Each believer being convinced of their own 'truth' while unwilling to consider other possibilities or that they may be mistaken.
Do you have faith in what you believe or do you doubt your own beliefs also? If you don't believe them why waste the time to pass them on to us? If you believe them then they are your faith--because faith is ascribing to your beliefs. Your emotion makes it obvious that you believe in your viewpoints and have faith that they are correct--but now your faith in your viewpoint is obscuring your vision--because you say that is what faith does.
Just making the logical extrapolation here and showing how you assessed yourself.
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love.
'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7
Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors.
The OT does not describe a God of Love;
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies.
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137
It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there...
There is a difference between the testaments--a clear difference but there is not contradiction--because the OT prophesied that Christ would come and establish a New Covenant and the New Testament indicates where things have changed. If both testaments are saying there was a change there is no contradiction. You are guys are too desperate to find contradictions and it's showing.
That's neither an explanation or a valid argument.....try to focus on the proposition that we are talking about a timeless God with timeless values, which means that It's not OK to kill someone for a minor transgression at any time or place..just because ancient people had hard lives and were cruel is not an excuse for God to be portrayed in the same way, no better than the people of the time.
Unless of course we create our gods in our own image. Which, given the NT facelift, appears to be the case.
God never said His laws for man would never change--He said they would therefore you basic assumption is false.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Please provide the proof that he "needed" to do this for the good of his family. If so why would he not ask if anyone could help his family rather than doing something for which he knew there was a death penalty. A loving father would not put his family at risk in this way. You feel the need to read into the text in order to avoid what is stated and make an emotional argument. You proposed as a logical contradiction, if it truly was that, you could prove it without making these speculative statements.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do
From whose mouth did the congregation hear the order to kill the law breaker?
Does anyone really believe the order was delivered by a voice from the heavens? Or was the order delivered by a priest who claimed to be speaking for God?
As to my personal belief......the swamp did not spring into existence this decade, or this century, or this millennium.
The swamp has existed since men first started gathering together into caves for protection and since men started building clusters of huts and calling them villages.
And the swamp certainly existed in the early Hebrew Priesthood. That priesthood was made of men corrupted by their power over other men, corrupted by their ability to extort tithes and offerings from other men, corrupted by the absolute power of life and death over their subjects, just like any other ruler of their day.
And these are the men who remembered and interpreted and repeated the oral traditions for centuries until the tools were available to record those stories on paper or parchment or hides or clay tablets.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Please provide the proof that he "needed" to do this for the good of his family. If so why would he not ask if anyone could help his family rather than doing something for which he knew there was a death penalty. A loving father would not put his family at risk in this way. You feel the need to read into the text in order to avoid what is stated and make an emotional argument. You proposed as a logical contradiction, if it truly was that, you could prove it without making these speculative statements.
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire.
God never said His laws for man would never change--He said they would therefore you basic assumption is false.
This debate has absolutely nothing to do with 'God's laws for man'
You are trying to show discrepancies between verses in the OT and NT and there is a different covenant in place. If that has no bearing in the debate then you must be debating with yourself.
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire.
This was not a "normal" case. It did not happen on a regular basis therefore your normal assumption for motive is erroneous.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do
From whose mouth did the congregation hear the order to kill the law breaker?
Does anyone really believe the order was delivered by a voice from the heavens? Or was the order delivered by a priest who claimed to be speaking for God?
As to my personal belief......the swamp did not spring into existence this decade, or this century, or this millennium.
The swamp has existed since men first started gathering together into caves for protection and since men started building clusters of huts and calling them villages.
And the swamp certainly existed in the early Hebrew Priesthood. That priesthood was made of men corrupted by their power over other men, corrupted by their ability to extort tithes and offerings from other men, corrupted by the absolute power of life and death over their subjects, just like any other ruler of their day.
And these are the men who remembered and interpreted and repeated the oral traditions for centuries until the tools were available to record those stories on paper or parchment or hides or clay tablets.
As far as it's known, nobody has ever heard anything from any God, not in the history of the world.
Everything we have comes from those who claim to be the representatives of this or that God. Never God himself, openly and honestly interacting with us.
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire.
This was not a "normal" case. It did not happen on a regular basis therefore your normal assumption for motive is erroneous.
How do you know the rate. You are making that assumption.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient. As the narrative goes, it was God who ordered his death by stoning....and that is the issue.
The issue is not with the priesthood, or the governing authority, or people, but the contradictory descriptions of God, a cruel vindictive, unforgiving Tyrant versus a God of Love, always forgiving, good to all, merciful....two completely opposing sets of attributes.
Point being, God never put pen to paper. Everything in the Bible came through the hand of Man.
And over the course of five millenia, man's interpretation of God evolved.
Even over just the last two thousand years, Man's interpretation of Christ has evolved to the point that the Church of 150 AD would not even recognize that which is taught today. Compare the teachings of any sect through the dark ages, compare the teachings of "The Church" through the Crusades and the inquisition to the forgiving, all inclusive, sodomite loving God presented today.
People claim, "Those were not real Christians."
But they were the only Christians extant at the time.
So, who is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, and of God?
Or, has God evolved as the priesthood has seen fit to maximize the size of their congregations, and keep the offering plate filled, as well as the priest's bellies.
Point being, God never put pen to paper. Everything in the Bible came through the hand of Man.
And over the course of five millenia, man's interpretation of God evolved.
Even over just the last two thousand years, Man's interpretation of Christ has evolved to the point that the Church of 150 AD would not even recognize that which is taught today. Compare the teachings of any sect through the dark ages, compare the teachings of "The Church" through the Crusades and the inquisition to the forgiving, all inclusive, sodomite loving God presented today.
People claim, "Those were not real Christians."
But they were the only Christians extant at the time.
So, who is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, and of God?
Or, has God evolved as the priesthood has seen fit to maximize the size of their congregations, and keep the offering plate filled, as well as the priest's bellies.
Well, Christianity quickly splintered in numerous versions and offshoots. Adoptionism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionites, Gnosticism, etc, etc.....
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient..... it was God who ordered his death by stoning...
conditions being in the wilderness, one might think there would be some leniency toward the offender.... keeping in mind Those Israelites who set out to gather manna on the sabbath were simply told to return to their tents...this despite Exodus 16 saying they were not even permitted to leave their dwellings on the sabbath,( to do so would be deemed a capital offence.)
So the Lord seems arbitrary in measuring out penalties.
now fast forward to the disciples of Jesus who were harvesting heads of grain on the sabbath, and Jesus defends their actions.
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient..... it was God who ordered his death by stoning...
conditions being in the wilderness, one might think there would be some leniency toward the offender.... keeping in mind Those Israelites who set out to gather manna on the sabbath were simply told to return to their tents...this despite Exodus 16 saying they were not even permitted to leave their dwellings on the sabbath,( to do so would be deemed a capital offence.)
So the Lord seems arbitrary in measuring out penalties.
now fast forward to the disciples of Jesus who were harvesting heads of grain on the sabbath, and Jesus defends their actions.
Even worse, the words attributed to Jesus happen to be;
''Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'' - Matthew 5:17
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do
From whose mouth did the congregation hear the order to kill the law breaker?
Does anyone really believe the order was delivered by a voice from the heavens? Or was the order delivered by a priest who claimed to be speaking for God?
As to my personal belief......the swamp did not spring into existence this decade, or this century, or this millennium.
The swamp has existed since men first started gathering together into caves for protection and since men started building clusters of huts and calling them villages.
And the swamp certainly existed in the early Hebrew Priesthood. That priesthood was made of men corrupted by their power over other men, corrupted by their ability to extort tithes and offerings from other men, corrupted by the absolute power of life and death over their subjects, just like any other ruler of their day.
And these are the men who remembered and interpreted and repeated the oral traditions for centuries until the tools were available to record those stories on paper or parchment or hides or clay tablets.
As far as it's known, nobody has ever heard anything from any God, not in the history of the world.
Everything we have comes from those who claim to be the representatives of this or that God. Never God himself, openly and honestly interacting with us.
There lies the problem.
God spoke the 10 commandments audibly to establish Moses as His spokesperson. The congregation also asked that God would speak through Moses.
Jesus came in humanity to bring the gospel. God does not speak His inspired word to each individual otherwise we would have numerous contradictory claims. These would be real and not merely alleged. The prophets of the OT spoke near and far claims to validate them as messengers. Jesus life death and resurrection validated His ministry. He left His apostles to finish it and the door of revelation was closed.
The validation of the prophets with their fulfillments is unassailable as well as the testimony. Of Jesus in this world.
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire.
This was not a "normal" case. It did not happen on a regular basis therefore your normal assumption for motive is erroneous.
How do you know the rate. You are making that assumption.
Provide another prior example to this case. You are missing the obvious as they would not have brought him to Lord to ask for guidance on the death penalty if they had prior precedent.
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient..... it was God who ordered his death by stoning...
conditions being in the wilderness, one might think there would be some leniency toward the offender.... keeping in mind Those Israelites who set out to gather manna on the sabbath were simply told to return to their tents...this despite Exodus 16 saying they were not even permitted to leave their dwellings on the sabbath,( to do so would be deemed a capital offence.)
So the Lord seems arbitrary in measuring out penalties.
now fast forward to the disciples of Jesus who were harvesting heads of grain on the sabbath, and Jesus defends their actions.
Even worse, the words attributed to Jesus happen to be;
''Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'' - Matthew 5:17
By fulfill it means to bring it to completion. When something is fulfilled nothing more needs to be done to satisfy it. His ministry fulfilled the law and its purposes and he began the institution of the gospel which empowered man to do what the law never could. The law could only show sin and give moral guidance it could not change hearts. The gospel changes hearts and accordingly their lives and gives them an understanding of scripture.
Until someone honestly and sincerely wants truth and is willing to embrace it the Bible will always be a mystery that they will not accurately interpret because their rejection of truth will not even allow an honest inquiry.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient. As the narrative goes, it was God who ordered his death by stoning....and that is the issue.
The issue is not with the priesthood, or the governing authority, or people, but the contradictory descriptions of God, a cruel vindictive, unforgiving Tyrant versus a God of Love, always forgiving, good to all, merciful....two completely opposing sets of attributes.
Read the pertinent passages that I cited--they knew he was guilty of the death penalty and simply asked God for guidance in how it was to be executed. Furthermore by a skeptics own definition of morality God did not exist and therefore spoke to no one so the group consensus made a decision but according to a skeptic's mantra the group consensus establishes morality. So no matter how the skeptic spins this story they have no arguable case.
Point being, God never put pen to paper. Everything in the Bible came through the hand of Man.
And over the course of five millenia, man's interpretation of God evolved.
Even over just the last two thousand years, Man's interpretation of Christ has evolved to the point that the Church of 150 AD would not even recognize that which is taught today. Compare the teachings of any sect through the dark ages, compare the teachings of "The Church" through the Crusades and the inquisition to the forgiving, all inclusive, sodomite loving God presented today.
People claim, "Those were not real Christians."
But they were the only Christians extant at the time.
So, who is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, and of God?
Or, has God evolved as the priesthood has seen fit to maximize the size of their congregations, and keep the offering plate filled, as well as the priest's bellies.
The gospel has never changed over the years. No one is disputing that people tried to use the authority of the Bible to justify their notions. The same thing happens today when liberals try to use our constitution to justify their moral aberrancy. The answer is not to throw out the constitution but to bring people back to the original understanding and intent for it.
BTW throughout the middle ages their always was the persecution of those who followed the teachings of Christ sincerely.
Point being, God never put pen to paper. Everything in the Bible came through the hand of Man.
And over the course of five millenia, man's interpretation of God evolved.
Even over just the last two thousand years, Man's interpretation of Christ has evolved to the point that the Church of 150 AD would not even recognize that which is taught today. Compare the teachings of any sect through the dark ages, compare the teachings of "The Church" through the Crusades and the inquisition to the forgiving, all inclusive, sodomite loving God presented today.
People claim, "Those were not real Christians."
But they were the only Christians extant at the time.
So, who is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, and of God?
Or, has God evolved as the priesthood has seen fit to maximize the size of their congregations, and keep the offering plate filled, as well as the priest's bellies.
Well, Christianity quickly splintered in numerous versions and offshoots. Adoptionism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionites, Gnosticism, etc, etc.....
as was prophesied that it would ... but Jesus also promised to continue to build His church in an age of a plethora of deceptions.
An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution. In both cases there is a determined rejection of content before the the reading starts and there will be numerous objections to the content based on the lack of honest and impartial inquiry. Their prejudice will not allow them the use of sound reasoning in looking at context, applying common sense, or considering the possibility of internal coherency. They start with rejection and look for ways to substantiate rejection.
In fact there is a lot of commonality between the two -- they are both purely humanistic approaches where they get to make all the rules. They plead toleration and free thinking till they get in power, then they use the party/group consensus approach and say we have it to do what we want. Then they will work to oppress, dismiss, and expel all influence of religion. In the end they will create a horror that they cannot control and which will ultimately self destruct.
There are so many things that the church of today got wrong,
1. gay marriage and sex 2. Money, offerings and tites 3. world possessions 4. preaching prosperity instead of making heaven 5. sex, rape scandal.
back in the days men of 'Ggod' use to be people of honor, truth and people who weren't obsessed with things of this world...but today they are filthy rich, beautiful wive, having divorces, private jets and luxury cars. they are living the life of a super star. Now who wants to listen to people like these ?????
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
Good thing this country isn't founded on challenging authority and no one ever wrote out that challenge in a document spelling out their grievances...
Point being, God never put pen to paper. Everything in the Bible came through the hand of Man.
And over the course of five millenia, man's interpretation of God evolved.
Even over just the last two thousand years, Man's interpretation of Christ has evolved to the point that the Church of 150 AD would not even recognize that which is taught today. Compare the teachings of any sect through the dark ages, compare the teachings of "The Church" through the Crusades and the inquisition to the forgiving, all inclusive, sodomite loving God presented today.
People claim, "Those were not real Christians."
But they were the only Christians extant at the time.
So, who is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, and of God?
Or, has God evolved as the priesthood has seen fit to maximize the size of their congregations, and keep the offering plate filled, as well as the priest's bellies.
Well, Christianity quickly splintered in numerous versions and offshoots. Adoptionism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionites, Gnosticism, etc, etc.....
as was prophesied that it would ... but Jesus also promised to continue to build His church in an age of a plethora of deceptions.
So are you saying the majority of Christianities are "deceptions".
There's over 34,000 variations of Christianity. How many of them have it right, and how many are "deceptions"?
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient..... it was God who ordered his death by stoning...
conditions being in the wilderness, one might think there would be some leniency toward the offender.... keeping in mind Those Israelites who set out to gather manna on the sabbath were simply told to return to their tents...this despite Exodus 16 saying they were not even permitted to leave their dwellings on the sabbath,( to do so would be deemed a capital offence.)
So the Lord seems arbitrary in measuring out penalties.
now fast forward to the disciples of Jesus who were harvesting heads of grain on the sabbath, and Jesus defends their actions.
Even worse, the words attributed to Jesus happen to be;
''Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'' - Matthew 5:17
By fulfill it means to bring it to completion. When something is fulfilled nothing more needs to be done to satisfy it. His ministry fulfilled the law and its purposes and he began the institution of the gospel which empowered man to do what the law never could. The law could only show sin and give moral guidance it could not change hearts. The gospel changes hearts and accordingly their lives and gives them an understanding of scripture.
Until someone honestly and sincerely wants truth and is willing to embrace it the Bible will always be a mystery that they will not accurately interpret because their rejection of truth will not even allow an honest inquiry.
That's complete BS, AND YOU KNOW IT's BS.
Matthew: 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The Earth is still here.
Read the words on the page. You're as bad a revisionist as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
Good thing this country isn't founded on challenging authority and no one ever wrote out that challenge in a document spelling out their grievances...
The difference is that US law allows some challenge of authority. But those who challenge authority in a manner contrary to the law get put down. Often even before a court heard the case.. But that is just the US.
Most governments in today's world are not so understanding.
So are you saying the majority of Christianities are "deceptions".
There's over 34,000 variations of Christianity. How many of them have it right, and how many are "deceptions"?
It is certainly not possible for all 34,000 variations of Christian's to all be correct. And certainly not every variation of Buddiism, Jewery, Hinduism, Muslims, Pagans, Deists, etc, etc can be correct as well.
But it is very possible that they can ALL be wrong.
I wonder if people ever stop to consider what would have compelled the desciples to tell the story of Jesus, especially after seeing Him crucified.
I dont think think they were getting rich or much wine, women and song for it. Were they just such good buds of Jesus they did it to piss the govt and religious leaders off?
Seems to me that, like our forefathers, there was something important at stake for them to risk life and limb for. Paul gave up robbing, raping, killing and pillaging for a life of pain and misery.
You athiests arent interested in putting 2 and 2 together or you would see its the same for many believers on the Fire. You cant swallow that they know something you dont, such as what changed them.
Why would He and the desciples and we say so if it werent so? Are we getting paid for it?
He said you stiff necks would fall into your own trap and you do every time you demand proof.
You demand proof from who created you? Ha. Did you ever see a little child demand proof of paternity from parents taking care of them? Keep on demanding to step in that trap He set for the blind, haughty and educated. You will get your proof soon enough, and there will be a great gnashing of teeth.
There was no reason for Him to tell you so if it werent.
So are you saying the majority of Christianities are "deceptions".
There's over 34,000 variations of Christianity. How many of them have it right, and how many are "deceptions"?
It is certainly not possible for all 34,000 variations of Christian's to all be correct. And certainly not every variation of Buddiism, Jewery, Hinduism, Muslims, Pagans, Deists, etc, etc can be correct as well.
But it is very possible that they can ALL be wrong.
Christians dont have to be correct in all Biblical things to be saved, but im sure you can logically figure things out quite well with a brain that doesnt know how many hairs grow above it, a brain that cant figure out how to make one living cell. Yep, put your faith in your genius brain.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
Good thing this country isn't founded on challenging authority and no one ever wrote out that challenge in a document spelling out their grievances...
Good thing that we have evolved from killing sinners who break the Sabbath...
So are you saying the majority of Christianities are "deceptions".
There's over 34,000 variations of Christianity. How many of them have it right, and how many are "deceptions"?
It is certainly not possible for all 34,000 variations of Christian's to all be correct. And certainly not every variation of Buddiism, Jewery, Hinduism, Muslims, Pagans, Deists, etc, etc can be correct as well.
But it is very possible that they can ALL be wrong.
“The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can't all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It's a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they're called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation”. Carl Sagan's Contact
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
Good thing this country isn't founded on challenging authority and no one ever wrote out that challenge in a document spelling out their grievances...
The difference is that US law allows some challenge of authority. But those who challenge authority in a manner contrary to the law get put down. Often even before a court heard the case.. But that is just the US.
Most governments in today's world are not so understanding.
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
"Arrive in Heaven! Be greeted by the Creator of the universe! No more sickness! Perfect health! No sin! Play 20 questions with a God! Unfettered communion with Jesus! Then, as we are being greeted by an infinite God, there will far more....more than I can imagine. Gonna be good....exciting! Oh, and if I need a break, stroll on down the streets of gold and over to the rib eye tree.....,"
That's your fantasy and there's no evidence of any of that.
1) If a baby or young child who is unaware of religion dies will they go to Heaven? How are they going to play 20 questions with God if they don't know how to talk yet? Will a baby remain in diapers or grow into an adult?
2) If you are bedridden, die at an old age and are down to skin and bone will you be remain like that in Heaven? Can you revert to an earlier age in Heaven when you were very healthy?
3) Why would you need a break in Heaven?
4) Why would you need gold (or streets) in Heaven?
5) How will I stroll if I don't have any legs? Will God make me some new legs?
6) Since there's rib eye trees in Heaven there must be plants but no animals. Will that rib eye already be cooked the way you like it? So you be won't be able to see your dogs.
7) Why would I want unfettered communion with Jesus? I don't like wine or bread.
You didn't answer my questions about having sex in Heaven.
I wonder if people ever stop to consider what would have compelled the desciples to tell the story of Jesus, especially after seeing Him crucified.
I dont think think they were getting rich or much wine, women and song for it. Were they just such good buds of Jesus they did it to piss the govt and religious leaders off?
Seems to me that, like our forefathers, there was something important at stake for them to risk life and limb for. Paul gave up robbing, raping, killing and pillaging for a life of pain and misery.
You athiests arent interested in putting 2 and 2 together or you would see its the same for many believers on the Fire. You cant swallow that they know something you dont, such as what changed them.
Why would He and the desciples and we say so if it werent so? Are we getting paid for it?
I would not claim to know the motivation of any man.
Why did Joseph Smith do the things he did? it lead to his murder and that of his brother.
David Koresh died for his actions along with many of his acaccolytes.
Martyrs can be found throughout human history. And most for reasons less benign than attempting to guide the Hebrew church toward a kinder and gentler path.
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient..... it was God who ordered his death by stoning...
conditions being in the wilderness, one might think there would be some leniency toward the offender.... keeping in mind Those Israelites who set out to gather manna on the sabbath were simply told to return to their tents...this despite Exodus 16 saying they were not even permitted to leave their dwellings on the sabbath,( to do so would be deemed a capital offence.)
So the Lord seems arbitrary in measuring out penalties.
now fast forward to the disciples of Jesus who were harvesting heads of grain on the sabbath, and Jesus defends their actions.
Even worse, the words attributed to Jesus happen to be;
''Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'' - Matthew 5:17
By fulfill it means to bring it to completion. When something is fulfilled nothing more needs to be done to satisfy it. His ministry fulfilled the law and its purposes and he began the institution of the gospel which empowered man to do what the law never could. The law could only show sin and give moral guidance it could not change hearts. The gospel changes hearts and accordingly their lives and gives them an understanding of scripture.
Until someone honestly and sincerely wants truth and is willing to embrace it the Bible will always be a mystery that they will not accurately interpret because their rejection of truth will not even allow an honest inquiry.
That's complete BS, AND YOU KNOW IT's BS.
Matthew: 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The Earth is still here.
Read the words on the page. You're as bad a revisionist as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
You are misunderstanding the meaning of "Heaven" and "Earth".
If you knew the scriptures, you would understand that Heaven refers here to the priesthood and earth to the people.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
Good thing this country isn't founded on challenging authority and no one ever wrote out that challenge in a document spelling out their grievances...
The difference is that US law allows some challenge of authority. But those who challenge authority in a manner contrary to the law get put down. Often even before a court heard the case.. But that is just the US.
Most governments in today's world are not so understanding.
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
I am sure the fault is in my writing, as you are demonstrably a discerning and learned individual.
But it appears I am not making the intention of my posts clear to you. I see no action of any deity in the matter being discussed..
I see a man gathering sticks in violation of the law executed by a domineering political system. Much like the peasants in Tienamen Square, or any worker who dared speak out against Lenin or Stalin.
No one is sitting in Hell becauseb Hell is a fiction invented by the priests to scare Ignorant peasants into compliance and keep the temple supplied with food, wine, and gold.
I will venture a guess. I figure it was the same reason i told on the fire of me and Buck Wright hunting early one morning in south Texas and having 3 UFOs fly over us. I had always wondered if any ufo stories were true. I thot it was important for people to know the truth in case a they ever encountered a similar event.
I figure they wanted people to know the truth about a much more important event. I figure they felt people should know the truth and the Good News about their creator and Jesus and forgiveness and everlasting life.
They saw something that precluded them from wanting the sins of others from falling on their heads for not warning them.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
Good thing this country isn't founded on challenging authority and no one ever wrote out that challenge in a document spelling out their grievances...
The authority of England was challenged on the basis of what the colonists believed to be a violation a moral code for just government. It was not based on a lone ranger shaking his sticks.
Point being, God never put pen to paper. Everything in the Bible came through the hand of Man.
And over the course of five millenia, man's interpretation of God evolved.
Even over just the last two thousand years, Man's interpretation of Christ has evolved to the point that the Church of 150 AD would not even recognize that which is taught today. Compare the teachings of any sect through the dark ages, compare the teachings of "The Church" through the Crusades and the inquisition to the forgiving, all inclusive, sodomite loving God presented today.
People claim, "Those were not real Christians."
But they were the only Christians extant at the time.
So, who is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, and of God?
Or, has God evolved as the priesthood has seen fit to maximize the size of their congregations, and keep the offering plate filled, as well as the priest's bellies.
Well, Christianity quickly splintered in numerous versions and offshoots. Adoptionism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionites, Gnosticism, etc, etc.....
as was prophesied that it would ... but Jesus also promised to continue to build His church in an age of a plethora of deceptions.
So are you saying the majority of Christianities are "deceptions".
There's over 34,000 variations of Christianity. How many of them have it right, and how many are "deceptions"?
What I said is that the NT prophesied that the end times would have a plethora of deceptions and false Christs and in this environment Christ would continue to build His church. The church is wherever people gather and organize themselves and around the NT and follow Jesus' teachings. Actually I said that days ago as well.
Matthew: 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The Earth is still here.
Read the words on the page. You're as bad a revisionist as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It simply means the law will be fulfilled before the end of the earth. The law has been fulfilled and earth is still here. It's pretty simple to understand if you make an honest inquiry, look at the context, and apply some common sense..
So are you saying the majority of Christianities are "deceptions".
There's over 34,000 variations of Christianity. How many of them have it right, and how many are "deceptions"?
It is certainly not possible for all 34,000 variations of Christian's to all be correct. And certainly not every variation of Buddiism, Jewery, Hinduism, Muslims, Pagans, Deists, etc, etc can be correct as well.
But it is very possible that they can ALL be wrong.
“The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can't all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It's a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they're called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation”. Carl Sagan's Contact
Yes it is obvious they cannot all be correct. What is the basis by which skepticism makes a determination that none are true? Is it too mind boggling for a skeptic to seek truth? Perhaps its easier to dismiss them all and create their truth but never tell us the basis from which they establish their skepticism.
Jesus was in the Bible. Several witnesses concurred on what He did and said.
I reckon if God can make a mans hand He can make it print what He wants it to.
Iirc, Jesus was from Marys womb.
And a man can print what a man wishes to print and claim it for the word of God.
Almost twenty million people today accept the writings of Joseph Smith as gospel.
How are they different from the followers of Peter,, Paul, Mark, Luke etc of two thousand years ago?
A fair question but we have spent pages offering evidence that no other religious book can make. 1. clear moral guidance at the outset of alphabetic writing 2.Fulfilled prophecies on a scale that no other book can match 3. more manuscript evidence than any other ancient book 4. a claim and proof that Jesus lived as a man, was crucified, and rose again you can go back and read it all 5. ancient critics acknowledging the life and death of Jesus but not being able to provide evidence that He did not rise
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
I wonder if people ever stop to consider what would have compelled the desciples to tell the story of Jesus, especially after seeing Him crucified.
I dont think think they were getting rich or much wine, women and song for it. Were they just such good buds of Jesus they did it to piss the govt and religious leaders off?
Seems to me that, like our forefathers, there was something important at stake for them to risk life and limb for. Paul gave up robbing, raping, killing and pillaging for a life of pain and misery.
You athiests arent interested in putting 2 and 2 together or you would see its the same for many believers on the Fire. You cant swallow that they know something you dont, such as what changed them.
Why would He and the desciples and we say so if it werent so? Are we getting paid for it?
I would not claim to know the motivation of any man.
Why did Joseph Smith do the things he did? it lead to his murder and that of his brother.
David Koresh died for his actions along with many of his acaccolytes.
Martyrs can be found throughout human history. And most for reasons less benign than attempting to guide the Hebrew church toward a kinder and gentler path.
Martyrdom without empirical evidence is fanaticism. Martyrdom on the basis of verifiable truth and principle is courage.
I am sure the fault is in my writing, as you are demonstrably a discerning and learned individual.
But it appears I am not making the intention of my posts clear to you. I see no action of any deity in the matter being discussed..
I see a man gathering sticks in violation of the law executed by a domineering political system. Much like the peasants in Tienamen Square, or any worker who dared speak out against Lenin or Stalin.
No one is sitting in Hell because Hell is a fiction invented by the priests to scare Ignorant peasants into compliance and keep the temple supplied with food, wine, and gold.
I understood your post.
My response was for the benefit of the believers who are blind to the moral equivalence you draw above.
Of course I see no evidence for a hell either. It's just interesting to so see who bible thumping patriots can't see the consequence of their own interpretations scripture.
Also martyrdom that is based on courage because right now your side is winning is not on par with NT martyrdom which says I willingly die for the truth and if I had the power to take your life because we have a religious difference, I would not.
I am sure the fault is in my writing, as you are demonstrably a discerning and learned individual.
But it appears I am not making the intention of my posts clear to you. I see no action of any deity in the matter being discussed..
I see a man gathering sticks in violation of the law executed by a domineering political system. Much like the peasants in Tienamen Square, or any worker who dared speak out against Lenin or Stalin.
No one is sitting in Hell because Hell is a fiction invented by the priests to scare Ignorant peasants into compliance and keep the temple supplied with food, wine, and gold.
I understood your post.
My response was for the benefit of the believers who are blind to the moral equivalence you draw above.
Of course I see no evidence for a hell either. It's just interesting to so see who bible thumping patriots can't see the consequence of their own interpretations scripture.
It is right to disobey government when God's laws are contravened. We obey government insofar as it does not contradict God's law.
The question is whether the government itself should be morally accountable to the governed. If you say it is not accountable, then all the governed are treated as Barbary pirates if they resist and the government operates without moral accountability.
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
I am sure the fault is in my writing, as you are demonstrably a discerning and learned individual.
But it appears I am not making the intention of my posts clear to you. I see no action of any deity in the matter being discussed..
I see a man gathering sticks in violation of the law executed by a domineering political system. Much like the peasants in Tienamen Square, or any worker who dared speak out against Lenin or Stalin.
No one is sitting in Hell because Hell is a fiction invented by the priests to scare Ignorant peasants into compliance and keep the temple supplied with food, wine, and gold.
I understood your post.
My response was for the benefit of the believers who are blind to the moral equivalence you draw above.
Of course I see no evidence for a hell either. It's just interesting to so see who bible thumping patriots can't see the consequence of their own interpretations scripture.
It is right to disobey government when God's laws are contravened. We obey government insofar as it does not contradict God's law.
Not according to Romans:
Romans 13:1-2: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow."
Jesus was in the Bible. Several witnesses concurred on what He did and said.
I reckon if God can make a mans hand He can make it print what He wants it to.
Iirc, Jesus was from Marys womb.
And a man can print what a man wishes to print and claim it for the word of God.
Almost twenty million people today accept the writings of Joseph Smith as gospel.
How are they different from the followers of Peter,, Paul, Mark, Luke etc of two thousand years ago?
A fair question but we have spent pages offering evidence that no other religious book can make. 1. clear moral guidance at the outset of alphabetic writing 2.Fulfilled prophecies on a scale that no other book can match 3. more manuscript evidence than any other ancient book 4. a claim and proof that Jesus lived as a man, was crucified, and rose again you can go back and read it all 5. ancient critics acknowledging the life and death of Jesus but not being able to provide evidence that He did not rise
Repeating the same disproven claims over and over does not change the fact that your claims are not true.
It is right to disobey government when God's laws are contravened. We obey government insofar as it does not contradict God's law.
Not completely, according to what I was taught in Sabbath School. One is always subject to the law of the land.
The best example cited is always the Sabbath. When keeping the proper Sabbath becomes unlawful, as it assuredly will because keeping a false Sabbath is "The Mark of the Beast". One will peacefully submit to any criminal punishments meted out for criminal infractions of that law up to and including death.
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
So much of what is said above is misleading. Saying the Enlightenment was a movement away from faith and toward science misses a lot and misrepresents a lot more. The Enlightment was premised on the belief that scientific truth could be discovered by reason. It did not purport to reject revelation as a means of ascertaining truth because it recognized that reason cannot refute revelation and vice-versa. A Deist was not the equivalent of an Atheist in the mind of the founders or on some scale of belief or unbelief. That's just silly. There is a difference between the skepticism that acknowledges "we don't know" and the radical skepticism of today that denies the existence of any objective reality at all. The Constitution clearly references the Christian God since it was axiomatic to the Founders that God meant Judeo-Christian monotheism. The Founders did not come from a tradition of Mohammedism for Chrissakes! The Preamble to the Constitution states that among its ends is the "secur[ing] of the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity". A"blessing" is, by definition, something which God wants you to have. It is something which God thinks is good for you. So, the idea of the existence of a God with the ability to bestow blessings is clearly implied in the Preamble of the Constituion in which its purposes are enumerated. In any event, the Constitution is an enactment of positive law. It's not a philosophic document so we wouldn't expect to find extended references to the philosophy which gave birth to the Constitution in that document itself. The philosophy underlying it is found in the Declaration of Independence in which the agreement between revealed religion (the laws of Nature's God" and reason (the laws of nature) was axiomatic and in which the existence of a God who oversaw the world was also axiomatic. Modern skepticism denies that genuine knowledge of the good, let alone reality, is even possible. This is radical, dogmatic skepticism which Jefferson and the Founders would have abhorred and probably more so than they might have abhorred narrow sectarian dogmatism.
In the past, it was decided by the priesthood. And nonconformists were put to death. Still is in the Islamic world.
In western society today, apparently each person is free to determine his own version of "Truth". No two truths seem to match. No one man's truth seems to be a bit more relevant than the next man's truth.
And since this is America, would we have it any other way?
The authority of England was challenged on the basis of what the colonists believed to be a violation a moral code for just government. It was not based on a lone ranger shaking his sticks.
The authority of England was challenged for economics. The rich importers and traders selling goods to the farmers and trappers of the new world were losing profits to the taxes imposed by the crown.
97% of the colonists could not have cared less whether they were taxed by The Crown or a Continental Government. They just wanted peace, quiet, and protection from hostile raiders of any skin tone.
"Arrive in Heaven! Be greeted by the Creator of the universe! No more sickness! Perfect health! No sin! Play 20 questions with a God! Unfettered communion with Jesus! Then, as we are being greeted by an infinite God, there will far more....more than I can imagine. Gonna be good....exciting! Oh, and if I need a break, stroll on down the streets of gold and over to the rib eye tree.....,"
That's your fantasy and there's no evidence of any of that.
1) If a baby or young child who is unaware of religion dies will they go to Heaven? How are they going to play 20 questions with God if they don't know how to talk yet? Will a baby remain in diapers or grow into adults?
2) If you are bedridden, die at an old age and are down to skin and bone will you be remain like that in Heaven? Can you revert to an earlier age in Heaven when you were very healthy?
3) Why would need a break in Heaven?
4) Why would you need gold (or streets) in Heaven?
5) How will I stroll if I don't have any legs? Will God make me some new legs?
6) Since there's rib eye trees there must be plants in Heaven but no animals. Will you eat them raw? So you be won't be able to see your dogs.
7) Why would I want unfettered communion with Jesus? I don't like wine or bread.
You didn't answer my questions about having sex in Heaven.
LOL.....of course I didn’t answer your question...... one will rapidly tire of trying to respond to every squawk of the seagull...!
Anyway.... there is biblical support for the premise that children who die before the “age of accountability” go to heaven.
Of course, you could have found that out with a rudimentary internet search, but you didn’t want to do that did you?
You’re just one of the flock and feel the need to “squawk.”
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
We have already addressed this -- the most liberal of the founders were Jefferson and Franklin. I gave quotes were Jefferson elevated the morals of Jesus above all others and where Franklin said their success was based on divine providence. The rest of the founders were even more religious. None were amoral or atheistic. The declaration of Independence which is seminal to all is based on a Creator giving them equal rights. No atheistic society was ever formed that amounted to anything worthwhile for this world. The Constitution should be read within the context of a religious people who were trying to establish a moral government without a state church.
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.
John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION” My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.
Elias Boudinot PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.17
Charles Carroll SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts. Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.
John Dickinson SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE; GENERAL IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.
[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.
Benjamin Franklin SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; DIPLOMAT; PRINTER; SCIENTIST; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.
John Hancock SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. He called on the entire state to pray “that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory.”
These are just a few from a vast volume. I fully support being skeptical of that which cannot be sustained by the laws of evidence and I certainly support being skeptical of the amoral basis of skepticism a system wholly inadequate to provide a foundation for anything that is true or enduring.
I am sure the fault is in my writing, as you are demonstrably a discerning and learned individual.
But it appears I am not making the intention of my posts clear to you. I see no action of any deity in the matter being discussed..
I see a man gathering sticks in violation of the law executed by a domineering political system. Much like the peasants in Tienamen Square, or any worker who dared speak out against Lenin or Stalin.
No one is sitting in Hell because Hell is a fiction invented by the priests to scare Ignorant peasants into compliance and keep the temple supplied with food, wine, and gold.
I understood your post.
My response was for the benefit of the believers who are blind to the moral equivalence you draw above.
Of course I see no evidence for a hell either. It's just interesting to so see who bible thumping patriots can't see the consequence of their own interpretations scripture.
It is right to disobey government when God's laws are contravened. We obey government insofar as it does not contradict God's law.
Not according to Romans:
Romans 13:1-2: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow."
Again Biblical illiteracy to the full scope of Scripture as the apostles said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." And in the same Romans 13 passage government is ordained by God to reward the good an punish the evildoers. Obedience is within that context.
Do you even consider context before making unfounded assertions?
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
So much of what is said above is misleading. Saying the Enlightenment was a movement away from faith and toward science misses a lot and misrepresents a lot more. The Enlightment was premised on the belief that scientific truth could be discovered by reason. It did not purport to reject revelation as a means of ascertaining truth because it recognized that reason cannot refute revelation and vice-versa. A Deist was not the equivalent of an Atheist in the mind of the founders or on some scale of belief or unbelief. That's just silly. There is a difference between the skepticism that acknowledges "we don't know" and the radical skepticism of today that denies the existence of any objective reality at all. The Constitution clearly references the Christian God since it was axiomatic to the Founders that God meant Judeo-Christian monotheism. The Founders did not come from a tradition of Mohammedism for Chrissakes! The Preamble to the Constitution states that among its ends is the "secur[ing] of the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity". A"blessing" is, by definition, something which God wants you to have. It is something which God thinks is good for you. So, the idea of the existence of a God with the ability to bestow blessings is clearly implied in the Preamble of the Constituion in which its purposes are enumerated. In any event, the Constitution is an enactment of positive law. It's not a philosophic document so we wouldn't expect to find extended references to the philosophy which gave birth to the Constitution in that document itself. The philosophy underlying it is found in the Declaration of Independence in which the agreement between revealed religion (the laws of Nature's God" and reason (the laws of nature) was axiomatic and in which the existence of a God who oversaw the world was also axiomatic. Modern skepticism denies that genuine knowledge of the good, let alone reality, is even possible. This is radical, dogmatic skepticism which Jefferson and the Founders would have abhorred and probably more so than they might have abhorred narrow sectarian dogmatism.
The authority of England was challenged on the basis of what the colonists believed to be a violation a moral code for just government. It was not based on a lone ranger shaking his sticks.
The authority of England was challenged for economics. The rich importers and traders selling goods to the farmers and trappers of the new world were losing profits to the taxes imposed by the crown.
97% of the colonists could not have cared less whether they were taxed by The Crown or a Continental Government. They just wanted peace, quiet, and protection from hostile raiders of any skin tone.
Read the Declaration for reasons given. How did they raise an army if what you say is even remotely accurate.
In the past, it was decided by the priesthood. And nonconformists were put to death. Still is in the Islamic world.
In western society today, apparently each person is free to determine his own version of "Truth". No two truths seem to match. No one man's truth seems to be a bit more relevant than the next man's truth.
And since this is America, would we have it any other way?
This was a question the founders really grappled with--they were keenly aware of religious history. Roger Williams wrote the Bloody Tenet of Persecution and expounded on this point. In the end what the Founders agree upon was to provide a moral government based on Biblical morals. They cited no other moral code as an authority other than the Bible. On the basis of this firm foundation as an anchor point they provided a Constitution which would best support Biblical moral principles but which would avoid the establishment of a state religion. They knew that establishing a state religion would degenerate into a battle over which denomination would be endorsed by the state. However they never put all religions on equal moral footing though they granted all religions the right to practice their faith providing they did not go beyond the Biblical morals infused into our founding documents.
The principles of a Constitutional and Republican form of government that was moral but not religious, had no prior precedence and they could not look to history to inform them. From the quotations previously cited its obvious where they looking for their guidance.
The authority of England was challenged on the basis of what the colonists believed to be a violation a moral code for just government. It was not based on a lone ranger shaking his sticks.
The authority of England was challenged for economics. The rich importers and traders selling goods to the farmers and trappers of the new world were losing profits to the taxes imposed by the crown.
97% of the colonists could not have cared less whether they were taxed by The Crown or a Continental Government. They just wanted peace, quiet, and protection from hostile raiders of any skin tone.
Read the Declaration for reasons given. How did they raise an army if what you say is even remotely accurate.
The same way Soros and company manage to create an army of Antifa at any conservative rally.
The rich and powerful are always in the background pulling strings.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age.
Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe.
According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do
From whose mouth did the congregation hear the order to kill the law breaker?
Does anyone really believe the order was delivered by a voice from the heavens? Or was the order delivered by a priest who claimed to be speaking for God?
As to my personal belief......the swamp did not spring into existence this decade, or this century, or this millennium.
The swamp has existed since men first started gathering together into caves for protection and since men started building clusters of huts and calling them villages.
And the swamp certainly existed in the early Hebrew Priesthood. That priesthood was made of men corrupted by their power over other men, corrupted by their ability to extort tithes and offerings from other men, corrupted by the absolute power of life and death over their subjects, just like any other ruler of their day.
And these are the men who remembered and interpreted and repeated the oral traditions for centuries until the tools were available to record those stories on paper or parchment or hides or clay tablets.
As far as it's known, nobody has ever heard anything from any God, not in the history of the world.
Everything we have comes from those who claim to be the representatives of this or that God. Never God himself, openly and honestly interacting with us.
There lies the problem.
God spoke the 10 commandments audibly to establish Moses as His spokesperson. The congregation also asked that God would speak through Moses.
Jesus came in humanity to bring the gospel. God does not speak His inspired word to each individual otherwise we would have numerous contradictory claims. These would be real and not merely alleged. The prophets of the OT spoke near and far claims to validate them as messengers. Jesus life death and resurrection validated His ministry. He left His apostles to finish it and the door of revelation was closed.
The validation of the prophets with their fulfillments is unassailable as well as the testimony. Of Jesus in this world.
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy)
Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient. As the narrative goes, it was God who ordered his death by stoning....and that is the issue.
The issue is not with the priesthood, or the governing authority, or people, but the contradictory descriptions of God, a cruel vindictive, unforgiving Tyrant versus a God of Love, always forgiving, good to all, merciful....two completely opposing sets of attributes.
Read the pertinent passages that I cited--they knew he was guilty of the death penalty and simply asked God for guidance in how it was to be executed. Furthermore by a skeptics own definition of morality God did not exist and therefore spoke to no one so the group consensus made a decision but according to a skeptic's mantra the group consensus establishes morality. So no matter how the skeptic spins this story they have no arguable case.
A skeptic does not necessarily accept an "argumentum ad populum" since it's a logical fallacy.
You understand zero about skeptics and skepticism.
How do you know the rate. You are making that assumption.
Provide another prior example to this case. You are missing the obvious as they would not have brought him to Lord to ask for guidance on the death penalty if they had prior precedent.
By working on the sabbath , one should incur the death penalty, Scripture is clear on that. [ Exodus 31:14, Exodus 35:2 ]
its not like this was the first time someone had broken/profained the sabbath and consequently put to death. [ Leviticus 24:14 ]
so that raises the question, why did they find the need or desire to consult the Lord for what punishment to issue to that particular blasphemer of the Sabbath?
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
We have already addressed this -- the most liberal of the founders were Jefferson and Franklin. I gave quotes were Jefferson elevated the morals of Jesus above all others and where Franklin said their success was based on divine providence. The rest of the founders were even more religious. None were amoral or atheistic. The declaration of Independence which is seminal to all is based on a Creator giving them equal rights. No atheistic society was ever formed that amounted to anything worthwhile for this world. The Constitution should be read within the context of a religious people who were trying to establish a moral government without a state church.
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.
John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION” My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.
Elias Boudinot PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.17
Charles Carroll SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts. Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.
John Dickinson SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE; GENERAL IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.
[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.
Benjamin Franklin SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; DIPLOMAT; PRINTER; SCIENTIST; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.
John Hancock SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. He called on the entire state to pray “that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory.”
These are just a few from a vast volume. I fully support being skeptical of that which cannot be sustained by the laws of evidence and I certainly support being skeptical of the amoral basis of skepticism a system wholly inadequate to provide a foundation for anything that is true or enduring.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God,” Thomas Jefferson urged his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787, “because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (i.e. the Book of Revelations), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
We have already addressed this -- the most liberal of the founders were Jefferson and Franklin. I gave quotes were Jefferson elevated the morals of Jesus above all others and where Franklin said their success was based on divine providence. The rest of the founders were even more religious. None were amoral or atheistic. The declaration of Independence which is seminal to all is based on a Creator giving them equal rights. No atheistic society was ever formed that amounted to anything worthwhile for this world. The Constitution should be read within the context of a religious people who were trying to establish a moral government without a state church.
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.
John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION” My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.
Elias Boudinot PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.17
Charles Carroll SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts. Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.
John Dickinson SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE; GENERAL IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.
[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.
Benjamin Franklin SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; DIPLOMAT; PRINTER; SCIENTIST; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.
John Hancock SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. He called on the entire state to pray “that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory.”
These are just a few from a vast volume. I fully support being skeptical of that which cannot be sustained by the laws of evidence and I certainly support being skeptical of the amoral basis of skepticism a system wholly inadequate to provide a foundation for anything that is true or enduring.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God,” Thomas Jefferson urged his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787, “because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (i.e. the Book of Revelations), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.
My, my.... sounds like ole TJ was not a follower. Many smart and capable folks do not believe. Many folks who have not been gifted with great minds have become followers and thereby demonstrated great wisdom.
You, whether of great mind or lesser, will still make a choice. Choose wisely and with humility.
Ole Magic Larry would be pleased with the words of TJ.....btw.... did you see the recent news about Krauss and Epstein? Also seems he got cut loose from ASU..... why?
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
So much of what is said above is misleading. Saying the Enlightenment was a movement away from faith and toward science misses a lot and misrepresents a lot more. The Enlightment was premised on the belief that scientific truth could be discovered by reason. It did not purport to reject revelation as a means of ascertaining truth because it recognized that reason cannot refute revelation and vice-versa. A Deist was not the equivalent of an Atheist in the mind of the founders or on some scale of belief or unbelief. That's just silly. There is a difference between the skepticism that acknowledges "we don't know" and the radical skepticism of today that denies the existence of any objective reality at all. The Constitution clearly references the Christian God since it was axiomatic to the Founders that God meant Judeo-Christian monotheism. The Founders did not come from a tradition of Mohammedism for Chrissakes! The Preamble to the Constitution states that among its ends is the "secur[ing] of the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity". A"blessing" is, by definition, something which God wants you to have. It is something which God thinks is good for you. So, the idea of the existence of a God with the ability to bestow blessings is clearly implied in the Preamble of the Constituion in which its purposes are enumerated. In any event, the Constitution is an enactment of positive law. It's not a philosophic document so we wouldn't expect to find extended references to the philosophy which gave birth to the Constitution in that document itself. The philosophy underlying it is found in the Declaration of Independence in which the agreement between revealed religion (the laws of Nature's God" and reason (the laws of nature) was axiomatic and in which the existence of a God who oversaw the world was also axiomatic. Modern skepticism denies that genuine knowledge of the good, let alone reality, is even possible. This is radical, dogmatic skepticism which Jefferson and the Founders would have abhorred and probably more so than they might have abhorred narrow sectarian dogmatism.
Well reasoned and historically accurate.
“Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys flunked Bible studies.” Bowsinger
The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. [The Age of Reason]
There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice . . . [Complete Writings]
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good. Thomas Paine
[quote]...... A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
The greatest recorded act of homicidal killing was, ironically, committed by God when he killed all human life on Earth except for Noah and members of his family.
That is your best example of an act done with impunity and with no moral accountability.
Hahahaha. And i bet you cant accept the Earth needs cleansing again.
Your leftest buds are intending on accomplishing almost the same. Except, they dont intend on killing the unjust. They plan on killing all but their friends.
Thats why Hillary was going to shoot Putins planes over Ukraine down and why Slick gave NK billions to stop wmd production.
Its why Zero sent $150 billion to Iran. It was to finance their plan.
Hahahaha. And i bet you cant accept the Earth needs cleansing again.
Your leftest buds are intending on accomplishing almost the same. Except, they dont intend on killing the unjust. They plan on killing all but their friends.
Thats why Hillary was going to shoot Putins planes over Ukraine down and why Slick gave NK billions to stop wmd production.
Its why Zero sent $150 billion to Iran. It was to finance their plan.
God spoke the 10 commandments audibly to establish Moses as His spokesperson. The congregation also asked that God would speak through Moses.
I don't think that God spoke through anybody at any time or place. I am merely pointing out the contradictions within the narrative, the two incompatible descriptions of God and the actions attributed to God within the story line,
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Jesus came in humanity to bring the gospel. God does not speak His inspired word to each individual otherwise we would have numerous contradictory claims. These would be real and not merely alleged. The prophets of the OT spoke near and far claims to validate them as messengers. Jesus life death and resurrection validated His ministry. He left His apostles to finish it and the door of revelation was closed.
The validation of the prophets with their fulfillments is unassailable as well as the testimony. Of Jesus in this world.
Have you looked at the history of the Gospels and how the NT was put together through a series of councils, copying between gospel writers, drawing from hearsay, etc?
Not that this matters, the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love, not keeping record of wrongs, and God who punishes generations for the sins of their fathers, orders executions murder and genocide, are there to be seen and read by anyone.
It's only the filter of faith that does not allow believers to acknowledge these contradictions.
''Oral gospel traditions, cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth, were the first stage in the formation of the written gospels. These oral traditions included different types of stories about Jesus. For example, people told anecdotes about Jesus healing the sick and debating with his opponents. The traditions also included sayings attributed to Jesus, such as parables and teachings on various subjects which, along with other sayings, formed the oral gospel tradition.[1][2]
Scholars generally understood that these written sources must have had a prehistory as oral tellings, but the very nature of oral transmission seemed to rule out the possibility of recovering them. However, in the early 20th century the German scholar Hermann Gunkel demonstrated a new critical method, form criticism, which he believed could discover traces of oral tradition in written texts. Gunkel specialized in Old Testament studies, but other scholars soon adopted and adapted his methods to the study of the New Testament.[3]
Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Markan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation.[15] It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.[16]''
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
We have already addressed this -- the most liberal of the founders were Jefferson and Franklin. I gave quotes were Jefferson elevated the morals of Jesus above all others and where Franklin said their success was based on divine providence. The rest of the founders were even more religious. None were amoral or atheistic. The declaration of Independence which is seminal to all is based on a Creator giving them equal rights. No atheistic society was ever formed that amounted to anything worthwhile for this world. The Constitution should be read within the context of a religious people who were trying to establish a moral government without a state church.
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.
John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION” My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.
Elias Boudinot PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.17
Charles Carroll SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts. Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.
John Dickinson SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE; GENERAL IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.
[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.
Benjamin Franklin SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; DIPLOMAT; PRINTER; SCIENTIST; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.
John Hancock SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. He called on the entire state to pray “that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory.”
These are just a few from a vast volume. I fully support being skeptical of that which cannot be sustained by the laws of evidence and I certainly support being skeptical of the amoral basis of skepticism a system wholly inadequate to provide a foundation for anything that is true or enduring.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God,” Thomas Jefferson urged his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787, “because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (i.e. the Book of Revelations), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.
Jefferson was one man among the founders. He still held to morals of Jesus. The majority of the others did not except his ravings. We are who we are in spite of him thanks to rest who were of sounder judgment.
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire.
This was not a "normal" case. It did not happen on a regular basis therefore your normal assumption for motive is erroneous.
How do you know the rate. You are making that assumption.
Provide another prior example to this case. You are missing the obvious as they would not have brought him to Lord to ask for guidance on the death penalty if they had prior precedent.
There is no way to know the circumstances, the account is too brief.
However, it is unlikely that in the history of the tribe of Israel that he was the first to careless on the Sabbath. The account written may have been something used as an example of the consequences of breaking the Sabbath.
It's not like everyone was likely to siit immobile on the Sabbath in the fear of overreaching the boundaries of what is or is not defined as 'rest.' It's doubtful that people did absolutely nothing....so breaking the Sabbath would be open to interpretation.
Perhaps the gatherer of sticks was just unlucky to be caught in an activity that his captors thought was excessive...they themselves were outside camp doing whatever they were doing when they caught him.
However, this is all irrelevant to the issue of the contradiction between two opposing descriptions of the nature of God, one that is forgiving (let those without sin cast the first stone), the other ordering the death of a man by public stoning for a minor transgression.
As mentioned above, over 34,000 versions of Christianity.
So, which one?
Denominations does not equate to versions of Christianity. All the mainline churches have historically embraced the core doctrines of Christianity. The church of Christ is universal and not limited to geographical organizations. Christ never intended for it to have hierarchy of rule.
An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution.
Nothing like it. Believers reading the bible interpret its narrative through the filter of their own beliefs, their faith, which often means ignoring or dismissing all that is inconvenient.
The proof of that lies in the numerous interpretations and offshoots in Christianity, which began almost immediately. Plus of course, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
The British weren't very understanding of our Declaration of Independence either. Since they were going against the authority of the day, I hope our forefathers are not burning in hell for their disobedience to the ruling authorities.
Correct which is why we let that ultimately in God's hands. But they were not seeking to overthrow faith or morality, rather they were seeking to establish it on a higher level. They sought the wisdom and guidance of God in public prayer and fasting. They all testified that they would have lost had not divine providence aided them. A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
Our forefathers were children of the Enlightenment, which was a movement toward science and away from Faith. As mentioned before, a good many were at least deist, the equivalent of being an Atheist in their day, and Jefferson's personal version of the Bible was highly modified.....
As for your claim about skeptics and government, keep in mind, Philosophical Skepticism is not limited to theistic claims, but is a method to evaluate all truth claims. In their day, Skeptics questioned the claims of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholasticism, and metaphysical claims beyond theism.
The philosophies of Hobbs and Spinoza, were both highly skeptical, and the skepticism of Hume and Kant greatly influenced Locke. The society you live in today was influences by skepticism way more than you realize.
So how many times is God, and how many times is specifically the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution of the United States?
So much of what is said above is misleading. Saying the Enlightenment was a movement away from faith and toward science misses a lot and misrepresents a lot more. The Enlightment was premised on the belief that scientific truth could be discovered by reason. It did not purport to reject revelation as a means of ascertaining truth because it recognized that reason cannot refute revelation and vice-versa. A Deist was not the equivalent of an Atheist in the mind of the founders or on some scale of belief or unbelief. That's just silly. There is a difference between the skepticism that acknowledges "we don't know" and the radical skepticism of today that denies the existence of any objective reality at all. The Constitution clearly references the Christian God since it was axiomatic to the Founders that God meant Judeo-Christian monotheism. The Founders did not come from a tradition of Mohammedism for Chrissakes! The Preamble to the Constitution states that among its ends is the "secur[ing] of the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity". A"blessing" is, by definition, something which God wants you to have. It is something which God thinks is good for you..
“Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys flunked Bible studies.” Bowsinger
The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. [The Age of Reason]
There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice . . . [Complete Writings]
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good. Thomas Paine
He was not a spokesman for the majority of the founders or this country. The age of reason came after the revolution. He also accused Washington of being a traitor. Jefferson kept slaves after writing all men were created equal. We have a great country in spite of them. I won't dismiss their contributions but they did not create the moral foundation of this nation that made it great.
An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution.
Nothing like it. Believers reading the bible interpret its narrative through the filter of their own beliefs, their faith, which often means ignoring or dismissing all that is inconvenient.
The proof of that lies in the numerous interpretations and offshoots in Christianity, which began almost immediately. Plus of course, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
And skeptics and communists don't have a filter lol?
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire.
This was not a "normal" case. It did not happen on a regular basis therefore your normal assumption for motive is erroneous.
How do you know the rate. You are making that assumption.
Provide another prior example to this case. You are missing the obvious as they would not have brought him to Lord to ask for guidance on the death penalty if they had prior precedent.
There is no way to know the circumstances, the account is too brief.
However, it is unlikely that in the history of the tribe of Israel that he was the first to careless on the Sabbath. The account written may have been something used as an example of the consequences of breaking the Sabbath.
It's not like everyone was likely to siit immobile on the Sabbath in the fear of overreaching the boundaries of what is or is not defined as 'rest.' It's doubtful that people did absolutely nothing....so breaking the Sabbath would be open to interpretation.
Perhaps the gatherer of sticks was just unlucky to be caught in an activity that his captors thought was excessive...they themselves were outside camp doing whatever they were doing when they caught him.
However, this is all irrelevant to the issue of the contradiction between two opposing descriptions of the nature of God, one that is forgiving (let those without sin cast the first stone), the other ordering the death of a man by public stoning for a minor transgression.
You just can't stop building your case on speculation while ignoring the laws that prescriptively addressed it. Then you go to NT and borrow from a different code. You seem intent on making inconsistent arguments and you keep changing your alleged original contradiction. If you had a case at the outset you would not feel compelled to keep revising it.
...... A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
The greatest recorded act of homicidal killing was, ironically, committed by God when he killed all human life on Earth except for Noah and members of his family.
That is your best example of an act done with impunity and with no moral accountability.
Do you believe that happened? You must or you have no case. God has the right to give life and take it away while we do not. He will judge the world again. Nice sidestep from acknowledging that atheists never built a good society.
An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution.
Nothing like it. Believers reading the bible interpret its narrative through the filter of their own beliefs, their faith, which often means ignoring or dismissing all that is inconvenient.
The proof of that lies in the numerous interpretations and offshoots in Christianity, which began almost immediately. Plus of course, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
The charge is true for some liberal christians but not all Christians. While the skeptic will typically reject and misinterpret the message just like a communist who would read our constitution. A plethora of offshoots still would not in any way dismiss the true. The counterfeits do not disanul the real.
God spoke the 10 commandments audibly to establish Moses as His spokesperson. The congregation also asked that God would speak through Moses.
I don't think that God spoke through anybody at any time or place. I am merely pointing out the contradictions within the narrative, the two incompatible descriptions of God and the actions attributed to God within the story line,
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Jesus came in humanity to bring the gospel. God does not speak His inspired word to each individual otherwise we would have numerous contradictory claims. These would be real and not merely alleged. The prophets of the OT spoke near and far claims to validate them as messengers. Jesus life death and resurrection validated His ministry. He left His apostles to finish it and the door of revelation was closed.
The validation of the prophets with their fulfillments is unassailable as well as the testimony. Of Jesus in this world.
Have you looked at the history of the Gospels and how the NT was put together through a series of councils, copying between gospel writers, drawing from hearsay, etc?
Not that this matters, the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love, not keeping record of wrongs, and God who punishes generations for the sins of their fathers, orders executions murder and genocide, are there to be seen and read by anyone.
It's only the filter of faith that does not allow believers to acknowledge these contradictions.
''Oral gospel traditions, cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth, were the first stage in the formation of the written gospels. These oral traditions included different types of stories about Jesus. For example, people told anecdotes about Jesus healing the sick and debating with his opponents. The traditions also included sayings attributed to Jesus, such as parables and teachings on various subjects which, along with other sayings, formed the oral gospel tradition.[1][2]
Scholars generally understood that these written sources must have had a prehistory as oral tellings, but the very nature of oral transmission seemed to rule out the possibility of recovering them. However, in the early 20th century the German scholar Hermann Gunkel demonstrated a new critical method, form criticism, which he believed could discover traces of oral tradition in written texts. Gunkel specialized in Old Testament studies, but other scholars soon adopted and adapted his methods to the study of the New Testament.[3]
Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Markan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation.[15] It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.[16]''
If you want to learn church history you should study it and not merely suckle the bottle of unscholarly skepticism. There was no ecumenical council that ever discussed the canon before Trent. The two councils that discussed it were local. Before they were ever convened we had the old Latin bible and even the Vulgate. So we had the form of the Bible we have today before any council discussed a canon. Skeptics are some of the worst historians.
...... A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
The greatest recorded act of homicidal killing was, ironically, committed by God when he killed all human life on Earth except for Noah and members of his family.
That is your best example of an act done with impunity and with no moral accountability.
Do you believe that happened? You must or you have no case. God has the right to give life and take it away while we do not. He will judge the world again. Nice sidestep from acknowledging that atheists never built a good society.
My post was only to support your claim that no moral accountability can allow for horrific acts. But only pointing to Nazis and Communists atrocities seemed bias and unfair because you did not include what God did.
...... A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
The greatest recorded act of homicidal killing was, ironically, committed by God when he killed all human life on Earth except for Noah and members of his family.
That is your best example of an act done with impunity and with no moral accountability.
Do you believe that happened? You must or you have no case. God has the right to give life and take it away while we do not. He will judge the world again. Nice sidestep from acknowledging that atheists never built a good society.
My post was only to support your claim that no moral accountability can allow for horrific acts. Although pointing only to Nazis and Communists atrocities seem bias and unfair because you did not include what God did.
And he forgets how the Church behaved when it had power. But I'm sure he has some absurd justification for The Inquisition.
An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution.
Nothing like it. Believers reading the bible interpret its narrative through the filter of their own beliefs, their faith, which often means ignoring or dismissing all that is inconvenient.
The proof of that lies in the numerous interpretations and offshoots in Christianity, which began almost immediately. Plus of course, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
And skeptics and communists don't have a filter lol?
Where did 'communists' come from? Did you slip that in for dramatic effect?
As for skepticism as a principle, not an ideology, that is just a way of examining claims in a logical and rational manner.
Given all the things people try to sell us as truth, a bit of applied scepticism is a healthy thing.
God spoke the 10 commandments audibly to establish Moses as His spokesperson. The congregation also asked that God would speak through Moses.
I don't think that God spoke through anybody at any time or place. I am merely pointing out the contradictions within the narrative, the two incompatible descriptions of God and the actions attributed to God within the story line,
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Jesus came in humanity to bring the gospel. God does not speak His inspired word to each individual otherwise we would have numerous contradictory claims. These would be real and not merely alleged. The prophets of the OT spoke near and far claims to validate them as messengers. Jesus life death and resurrection validated His ministry. He left His apostles to finish it and the door of revelation was closed.
The validation of the prophets with their fulfillments is unassailable as well as the testimony. Of Jesus in this world.
Have you looked at the history of the Gospels and how the NT was put together through a series of councils, copying between gospel writers, drawing from hearsay, etc?
Not that this matters, the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love, not keeping record of wrongs, and God who punishes generations for the sins of their fathers, orders executions murder and genocide, are there to be seen and read by anyone.
It's only the filter of faith that does not allow believers to acknowledge these contradictions.
''Oral gospel traditions, cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth, were the first stage in the formation of the written gospels. These oral traditions included different types of stories about Jesus. For example, people told anecdotes about Jesus healing the sick and debating with his opponents. The traditions also included sayings attributed to Jesus, such as parables and teachings on various subjects which, along with other sayings, formed the oral gospel tradition.[1][2]
Scholars generally understood that these written sources must have had a prehistory as oral tellings, but the very nature of oral transmission seemed to rule out the possibility of recovering them. However, in the early 20th century the German scholar Hermann Gunkel demonstrated a new critical method, form criticism, which he believed could discover traces of oral tradition in written texts. Gunkel specialized in Old Testament studies, but other scholars soon adopted and adapted his methods to the study of the New Testament.[3]
Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Markan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation.[15] It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.[16]''
If you want to learn church history you should study it and not merely suckle the bottle of unscholarly skepticism. There was no ecumenical council that ever discussed the canon before Trent. The two councils that discussed it were local. Before they were ever convened we had the old Latin bible and even the Vulgate. So we had the form of the Bible we have today before any council discussed a canon. Skeptics are some of the worst historians.
That's not a rational argument. I was referring to academic studies, not what evangelists teach their rapt congregation while they nod their heads in unison.
There are disputes over the very nature of God, a Triune God where Jesus is divine, the Word of God, is not the same God as one where Jesus is not Divine, not the Word of God....which is yet another contradiction. This is without even going into the differences that are believed about God between Judaism and Christianity, the contradictions relating to the nature and role of Satan between Judaism and Christianity, etc.
There is no way to know the circumstances, the account is too brief.
However, it is unlikely that in the history of the tribe of Israel that he was the first to careless on the Sabbath. ....
Perhaps the gatherer of sticks was just unlucky to be caught in an activity that his captors thought was excessive..
Israelites began breaking the Sabbath from the Get Go. God described them as 'hard headed' and finding the need to repeatedly remind them of the importance of keeping the sabbath. thus its reasonable to suggest the Lord finding it hard to get it through to Israelites, decided to single out the stick gatherer to set a harsh example to all other blasphemers.
The rules were already made repeatedly clear that working on the sabbath meant death, ..and blasphemers had already been stoned to death ....So why the need to consult the Lord as to what punishment the stick gatherer should receive..?.
There is no way to know the circumstances, the account is too brief.
However, it is unlikely that in the history of the tribe of Israel that he was the first to careless on the Sabbath. ....
Perhaps the gatherer of sticks was just unlucky to be caught in an activity that his captors thought was excessive..
Israelites began breaking the Sabbath from the Get Go. God described them as 'hard headed' and finding the need to repeatedly remind them of the importance of keeping the sabbath. thus its reasonable to suggest the Lord finding it hard to get it through to Israelites, decided to single out the stick gatherer to set a harsh example to all other blasphemers.
The rules were already made repeatedly clear that working on the sabbath meant death, ..and blasphemers had already been stoned to death ....So why the need to consult the Lord as to what punishment the stick gatherer should receive..?.
How would 'work' even be defined....is everyone supposed to abstain from cooking meals on a Sabbath because cooking is work, lighting a fire is work? If gathering sticks is work and means a death sentence, why not lighting a fire, cooking meals, tending to family needs?
Who policed these things on the Sabbath....is that a kind of work?
Maybe everyone was supposed to stay in bed for the day in order to avoid the death penalty.
There is no way to know the circumstances, the account is too brief.
However, it is unlikely that in the history of the tribe of Israel that he was the first to careless on the Sabbath. ....
Perhaps the gatherer of sticks was just unlucky to be caught in an activity that his captors thought was excessive..
So you think the story is historically accurate?
It doesn't matter, it doesn't have to be. There can be contradictions in fictional narratives. I am merely pointing contradictions that are in the bible.
...... A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
The greatest recorded act of homicidal killing was, ironically, committed by God when he killed all human life on Earth except for Noah and members of his family.
That is your best example of an act done with impunity and with no moral accountability.
Do you believe that happened? You must or you have no case. God has the right to give life and take it away while we do not. He will judge the world again. Nice sidestep from acknowledging that atheists never built a good society.
My post was only to support your claim that no moral accountability can allow for horrific acts. Although pointing only to Nazis and Communists atrocities seem bias and unfair because you did not include what God did.
And he forgets how the Church behaved when it had power. But I'm sure he has some absurd justification for The Inquisition.
Sometimes it seems that TS is more interested in presenting only the cool God stuff. It is almost like TS needs a Christian partisan win instead of an objective search for facts based on data.
There is no way to know the circumstances, the account is too brief.
However, it is unlikely that in the history of the tribe of Israel that he was the first to careless on the Sabbath. ....
Perhaps the gatherer of sticks was just unlucky to be caught in an activity that his captors thought was excessive..
Israelites began breaking the Sabbath from the Get Go. God described them as 'hard headed' and finding the need to repeatedly remind them of the importance of keeping the sabbath. thus its reasonable to suggest the Lord finding it hard to get it through to Israelites, decided to single out the stick gatherer to set a harsh example to all other blasphemers.
The rules were already made repeatedly clear that working on the sabbath meant death, ..and blasphemers had already been stoned to death ....So why the need to consult the Lord as to what punishment the stick gatherer should receive..?.
How would 'work' even be defined....is everyone supposed to abstain from cooking meals on a Sabbath because cooking is work, lighting a fire is work? If gathering sticks is work and means a death sentence, why not lighting a fire, cooking meals, tending to family needs?
Who policed these things on the Sabbath....is that a kind of work?
Maybe everyone was supposed to stay in bed for the day in order to avoid the death penalty.
If you sincerely do not know, yes cooking of food is forbidden from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday.
Livestock is given double rations on Friday afternoon as well. But some chores are unavoidable on Sabbath and allowed for the health of the herd or flock. Such as, the sheep must still be herded to pasture and water. Cattle or goats must be taken to water if no live water flows through their containment. Dairy animals have to be milked night and morning. And any young animals still dependent upon that milk must be fed.
...... A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
The greatest recorded act of homicidal killing was, ironically, committed by God when he killed all human life on Earth except for Noah and members of his family.
That is your best example of an act done with impunity and with no moral accountability.
Do you believe that happened? You must or you have no case. God has the right to give life and take it away while we do not. He will judge the world again. Nice sidestep from acknowledging that atheists never built a good society.
My post was only to support your claim that no moral accountability can allow for horrific acts. But only pointing to Nazis and Communists atrocities seemed bias and unfair because you did not include what God did.
We are not in the same class as God or the universe or whatever force if you please that takes life all the time. We are specifically talking about human choices and in that context alone there has never been an atheistic society that has been beneficent. That is very telling.
...... A skeptic would never be able to establish a beneficent country like our founders because they would begin with rejecting God, His morals, and would create their own truth and reality.We know what happens when that occurs because that is what the Nazis and Communists did.Such countries commit atrocities with impunity because their is no moral accountability.
The greatest recorded act of homicidal killing was, ironically, committed by God when he killed all human life on Earth except for Noah and members of his family.
That is your best example of an act done with impunity and with no moral accountability.
Do you believe that happened? You must or you have no case. God has the right to give life and take it away while we do not. He will judge the world again. Nice sidestep from acknowledging that atheists never built a good society.
My post was only to support your claim that no moral accountability can allow for horrific acts. Although pointing only to Nazis and Communists atrocities seem bias and unfair because you did not include what God did.
And he forgets how the Church behaved when it had power. But I'm sure he has some absurd justification for The Inquisition.
I despise the Inquisition--they never were followers of Christ. However the scale of atrocities by atheistic societies is by far unparalleled.
An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution.
Nothing like it. Believers reading the bible interpret its narrative through the filter of their own beliefs, their faith, which often means ignoring or dismissing all that is inconvenient.
The proof of that lies in the numerous interpretations and offshoots in Christianity, which began almost immediately. Plus of course, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
And skeptics and communists don't have a filter lol?
Where did 'communists' come from? Did you slip that in for dramatic effect?
As for skepticism as a principle, not an ideology, that is just a way of examining claims in a logical and rational manner.
Given all the things people try to sell us as truth, a bit of applied scepticism is a healthy thing.
Look at the original post it was there all along.when I compared an avowed skeptic reading the Bible to an avowed communist reading our constitution. Critical thinking that requires evidence based conclusions is a good thing. Skepticism as system does not compare with critical thinking. They have a clear anti-religious agenda and therefore they are closer to Communist thought which has the same premise than impartial critical thinking. I have yet to dialogue with a skeptic who made an honest impartial inquiry to find truth.
We are not in the same class as God or the universe or whatever force if you please takes life all the time. We are specifically talking about human choices and in that context alone there has never been an atheistic society that has been beneficent. That is very telling.
Well, duhhh. We are not in the same class as Marvel superheros either. Pretty much a working definition of Gods and SuperHeros to be in a different class as the rest of us.
Universe never claimed to love mankind and wants a personal relationship with man. God did claim to love man, wants a relationship but also committed the greatest act of homicide recorded along with multiple sub-greatest homicides.
God spoke the 10 commandments audibly to establish Moses as His spokesperson. The congregation also asked that God would speak through Moses.
I don't think that God spoke through anybody at any time or place. I am merely pointing out the contradictions within the narrative, the two incompatible descriptions of God and the actions attributed to God within the story line,
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Jesus came in humanity to bring the gospel. God does not speak His inspired word to each individual otherwise we would have numerous contradictory claims. These would be real and not merely alleged. The prophets of the OT spoke near and far claims to validate them as messengers. Jesus life death and resurrection validated His ministry. He left His apostles to finish it and the door of revelation was closed.
The validation of the prophets with their fulfillments is unassailable as well as the testimony. Of Jesus in this world.
Have you looked at the history of the Gospels and how the NT was put together through a series of councils, copying between gospel writers, drawing from hearsay, etc?
Not that this matters, the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love, not keeping record of wrongs, and God who punishes generations for the sins of their fathers, orders executions murder and genocide, are there to be seen and read by anyone.
It's only the filter of faith that does not allow believers to acknowledge these contradictions.
''Oral gospel traditions, cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth, were the first stage in the formation of the written gospels. These oral traditions included different types of stories about Jesus. For example, people told anecdotes about Jesus healing the sick and debating with his opponents. The traditions also included sayings attributed to Jesus, such as parables and teachings on various subjects which, along with other sayings, formed the oral gospel tradition.[1][2]
Scholars generally understood that these written sources must have had a prehistory as oral tellings, but the very nature of oral transmission seemed to rule out the possibility of recovering them. However, in the early 20th century the German scholar Hermann Gunkel demonstrated a new critical method, form criticism, which he believed could discover traces of oral tradition in written texts. Gunkel specialized in Old Testament studies, but other scholars soon adopted and adapted his methods to the study of the New Testament.[3]
Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Markan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation.[15] It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.[16]''
If you want to learn church history you should study it and not merely suckle the bottle of unscholarly skepticism. There was no ecumenical council that ever discussed the canon before Trent. The two councils that discussed it were local. Before they were ever convened we had the old Latin bible and even the Vulgate. So we had the form of the Bible we have today before any council discussed a canon. Skeptics are some of the worst historians.
That's not a rational argument. I was referring to academic studies, not what evangelists teach their rapt congregation while they nod their heads in unison.
I was saying you ought to study church history from original sources--the ante-Nicene and Nicene works. That is by far the largest source of original data.Skeptic scholarship assumes they can revise history to suit their objectives, But as I pointed out there history of the canon is fraught with unfounded speculation and lack of facts. Maybe they don't study history.
"Arrive in Heaven! Be greeted by the Creator of the universe! No more sickness! Perfect health! No sin! Play 20 questions with a God! Unfettered communion with Jesus! Then, as we are being greeted by an infinite God, there will far more....more than I can imagine. Gonna be good....exciting! Oh, and if I need a break, stroll on down the streets of gold and over to the rib eye tree.....,"
That's your fantasy and there's no evidence of any of that.
1) If a baby or young child who is unaware of religion dies will they go to Heaven? How are they going to play 20 questions with God if they don't know how to talk yet? Will a baby remain in diapers or grow into adults?
2) If you are bedridden, die at an old age and are down to skin and bone will you be remain like that in Heaven? Can you revert to an earlier age in Heaven when you were very healthy?
3) Why would need a break in Heaven?
4) Why would you need gold (or streets) in Heaven?
5) How will I stroll if I don't have any legs? Will God make me some new legs?
6) Since there's rib eye trees there must be plants in Heaven but no animals. Will you eat them raw? So you be won't be able to see your dogs.
7) Why would I want unfettered communion with Jesus? I don't like wine or bread.
You didn't answer my questions about having sex in Heaven.
LOL.....of course I didn’t answer your question...... one will rapidly tire of trying to respond to every squawk of the seagull...!
Anyway.... there is biblical support for the premise that children who die before the “age of accountability” go to heaven.
Of course, you could have found that out with a rudimentary internet search, but you didn’t want to do that did you?
You’re just one of the flock and feel the need to “squawk.”
Well, go ahead.....
You didn't answer any of my questions because you have NO answers to any of the questions I've asked. So you think I can find the answers to my questions by doing a rudimentary internet search. You're the one that described the Christian Heaven so why wouldn't I ask you directly?
“Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys flunked Bible studies.” Bowsinger
“In the Affairs of this World Men are saved, not by Faith, but by the Lack of it.” ― Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
“The best way to see Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” ― Benjamin Franklin
“You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it... I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his [Jesus'] divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. [Letter to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790]” ― Benjamin Franklin, The Life and Letters of Benjamin Franklin
“I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe in that He ought to be whipped from pilar to post and back again for His shameful actions toward Humanity.” ― Benjamin Franklin, Wit and Wisdom from Poor Richard's Almanack
I'm not aware of anything stated that way in the OT. We have something similar in "love your neighbor as yourself. " Is this the moral code that you would subscribe to and use as a test of morality?
Keep in mind, by "thy neighbor" the OT means other Jews.
Love other Jews as yourself, but buy your slaves from the Heathen around you.
No, it doesn't.
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
[b]36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
You overlook the discrepancies between the old testament and the new. God is not even the same between the OT and the NT.
I overlook nothing and you overlook everything. You know less than nothing about God and I have no words to change that for you, because you can't hear them or understand them simply because you won't.
1.Marxists stand on the basis of philosophical materialism, which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today. Nature furnishes its own explanations and it furnishes them in great abundance. 2. The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism. 3.So, in spite of all this scientific development, why does Religion still have a grip on the minds of millions? Religion offers men and women the consolation of a life after death. 4.Where religion teaches us to lift our eyes to the heavens, Marxism tells us to fight for a better life on earth. Marxists believe that men and women should fight to transform their lives and to create a genuinely human society which would permit the human race to lift itself up to its true stature. We believe that men and women have only one life, and should dedicate themselves to making this life beautiful and self-fulfilling. If you like, we are fighting for a paradise in this life, because we know there is no other. 5. Lenin also pointed out that Engels recommended that the revolutionary party should carry out a struggle against religion: "The party of the proletariat demands that the state shall declare religion a private matter, but it does not for a moment regard the question of a fight against the opium of the people - the fight against religious superstition, etc., - as a private matter. The opportunists have so distorted the question as to make it appear that the Social Democratic Party regards religion as a private matter." Lenin on Religion pg 18 6.In the struggle of science against religion - that is to say, the struggle of rational thought against irrationality - Marxism sides wholeheartedly with science. 7. From the Communist manifesto:Question 22. Do Communists reject existing religions? Answer: All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them. 8.Vladimir Lenin was highly critical of religion, saying in his book Religion: Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.[7] In The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, he wrote: Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[8]
Now notice the clear difference between Marxist/Skeptics views of Deity and morals and those of our Founders.
... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal l, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
...a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,
Everyone who signed this document believed in: 1. laws of nature--meaning they are universal and absolutes wherever there is nature (the Bible speaks of this also) 2. Nature's God--the Cosmos has a ruler who establishes the laws of nature 3. truths to be self-evident -- beyond all reasonable debate or skepticism 4. a self-evident truth is -- all men are created equally 5. a self evident truth -- that the Creator bestowed rights upon men--such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness 6. God is the supreme judge of all causes 7. The invocation of Divine aid is essential in their cause
In looking at what has been posted on this thread the Skeptic beliefs are much more closely aligned with Marxism than what our founders all signed. In fact most of the skeptics on this thread could not honestly sign the Declaration based on what they posted. Based on the clear evidence of this thread, we have a right:
1. to be skeptical of whether they espouse the American principles of free government 2. to be skeptical of the value of their belief in our free societies that are based on God given freedoms 3. to be skeptical of the scholarship which underlies their belief system- because we like our founders believe Creation and moral absolutes are self evident and beyond reasonable debate
I despise the Inquisition--they never were followers of Christ. However the scale of atrocities by atheistic societies is by far unparalleled.
How can we define Christianity, but by the actions of the Christian Church at any point in time? During the Inquisition, the Catholic Church was THE Christian Church. But forgo that thought.
Lets discuss historical atrocities and the nature of the people who committed them.
Spain was a Christian nation with a king blessed by the Papacy, and carried one or more priests on every expedition, when they started sailing across the Atlantic and systematically eliminated (to the extent they found possible) and enslaved the indigenous peoples of South and Central America.
This Christian government of the US, which you have praised at length, went to great lengths in their attempt to eliminate every indigenous tribe in North America.
Both being massive acts of genocide.
Germany was a Christian nation in the 1930s, and were assured German victory in WW II was ordained by God.
Atheists, Bhuddhists, Shintoists, nor Muslims hold no monopoly on the perpetration of atrocities to advance a political, or military, or religious agenda. But then that is redundant as the three agendas are often the same, or so entwined as to be inseparable.
1.Marxists stand on the basis of philosophical materialism, which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today. Nature furnishes its own explanations and it furnishes them in great abundance. 2. The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism. 3.So, in spite of all this scientific development, why does Religion still have a grip on the minds of millions? Religion offers men and women the consolation of a life after death. 4.Where religion teaches us to lift our eyes to the heavens, Marxism tells us to fight for a better life on earth. Marxists believe that men and women should fight to transform their lives and to create a genuinely human society which would permit the human race to lift itself up to its true stature. We believe that men and women have only one life, and should dedicate themselves to making this life beautiful and self-fulfilling. If you like, we are fighting for a paradise in this life, because we know there is no other. 5. Lenin also pointed out that Engels recommended that the revolutionary party should carry out a struggle against religion: "The party of the proletariat demands that the state shall declare religion a private matter, but it does not for a moment regard the question of a fight against the opium of the people - the fight against religious superstition, etc., - as a private matter. The opportunists have so distorted the question as to make it appear that the Social Democratic Party regards religion as a private matter." Lenin on Religion pg 18 6.In the struggle of science against religion - that is to say, the struggle of rational thought against irrationality - Marxism sides wholeheartedly with science. 7. From the Communist manifesto:Question 22. Do Communists reject existing religions? Answer: All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them. 8.Vladimir Lenin was highly critical of religion, saying in his book Religion: Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.[7] In The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, he wrote: Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[8]
Now notice the clear difference between Marxist/Skeptics views of Deity and morals and those of our Founders.
... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal l, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
...a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,
Everyone who signed this document believed in: 1. laws of nature--meaning they are universal and absolutes wherever there is nature (the Bible speaks of this also) 2. Nature's God--the Cosmos has a ruler who establishes the laws of nature 3. truths to be self-evident -- beyond all reasonable debate or skepticism 4. a self-evident truth is -- all men are created equally 5. a self evident truth -- that the Creator bestowed rights upon men--such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness 6. God is the supreme judge of all causes 7. The invocation of Divine aid is essential in their cause
In looking at what has been posted on this thread the Skeptic beliefs are much more closely aligned with Marxism than what our founders all signed. In fact most of the skeptics on this thread could not honestly sign the Declaration based on what they posted. Based on the clear evidence of this thread, we have a right:
1. to be skeptical of whether they espouse the American principles of free government 2. to be skeptical of the value of their belief in our free societies that are based on God given freedoms 3. to be skeptical of the scholarship which underlies their belief system- because we like our founders believe Creation and moral absolutes are self evident and beyond reasonable debate
In looking at what has been posted on this thread the Skeptic beliefs are much more closely aligned with Marxism than what our founders all signed. In fact most of the skeptics on this thread could not honestly sign the Declaration based on what they posted. Based on the clear evidence of this thread, we have a right:
1. to be skeptical of whether they espouse the American principles of free government 2. to be skeptical of the value of their belief in our free societies that are based on God given freedoms 3. to be skeptical of the scholarship which underlies their belief system- because we like our founders believe Creation and moral absolutes are self evident and beyond reasonable debate
I believe religion is "the opiate of the masses" and one should strive to experience heaven here on Earth as there is no other. I also believe in moral absolutes which are beyond reasonable debate and find these to be self evident. How are these things mutually exclusive?
I despise the Inquisition--they never were followers of Christ. However the scale of atrocities by atheistic societies is by far unparalleled.
How can we define Christianity, but by the actions of the Christian Church at any point in time? During the Inquisition, the Catholic Church was THE Christian Church. But forgo that thought.
Lets discuss historical atrocities and the nature of the people who committed them.
Spain was a Christian nation with a king blessed by the Papacy, and carried one or more priests on every expedition, when they started sailing across the Atlantic and systematically eliminated (to the extent they found possible) and enslaved the indigenous peoples of South and Central America.
This Christian government of the US, which you have praised at length, went to great lengths in their attempt to eliminate every indigenous tribe in North America.
Both being massive acts of genocide.
Germany was a Christian nation in the 1930s, and were assured German victory in WW II was ordained by God.
Atheists, Bhuddhists, Shintoists, nor Muslims hold no monopoly on the perpetration of atrocities to advance a political, or military, or religious agenda. But then that is redundant as the three agendas are often the same, or so entwined as to be inseparable.
Christianity is defined by the teachings and example of Christ. Anything that does not mirror those is a departure and is not authentic. Men though professing Christianity have departed from the teachings of Christ and have done very evil things at times. There are some notable examples in American history of people who also advocated for the right of the native Americans. Some of the early colonies had good relationships based on mutual respect. Men who abandon the thought of moral responsibility to God will become even worse--atheistic societies are very good examples of that.
In looking at what has been posted on this thread the Skeptic beliefs are much more closely aligned with Marxism than what our founders all signed. In fact most of the skeptics on this thread could not honestly sign the Declaration based on what they posted. Based on the clear evidence of this thread, we have a right:
1. to be skeptical of whether they espouse the American principles of free government 2. to be skeptical of the value of their belief in our free societies that are based on God given freedoms 3. to be skeptical of the scholarship which underlies their belief system- because we like our founders believe Creation and moral absolutes are self evident and beyond reasonable debate
I believe religion is "the opiate of the masses" and one should strive to experience heaven here on Earth as there is no other. I also believe in moral absolutes which are beyond reasonable debate and find these to be self evident. How are these things mutually exclusive?
Do you believe in moral absolutes based on God's moral standards as the founders? Moral absolutes outside of God are merely the product of a society. The Nazis created their own society and morals and by their own creation they were perfectly moral in gassing the Jews. So how could we try them for war crimes for obeying their own laws and morals?
You still do not understand the difference in believing in God but denying the Bible.
Some of the same men that you put up while trying to prove your faith have also found fault with the Bible as written. But they still believed in God.
But you can’t see that or at least won’t admit it. All you can do is call names. Call skeptics who disagree with you...communists.
You do not understand your own Faith.
I did not say, nor does the Declaration say you must believe the Bible. I only repeated what the Declaration says and noted your beliefs more closely aligned with Marxism than the founders who signed the declaration. I used the term Marxist because that is the root philosophy.An empirical observation based on evidence in this thread is not name calling. Do you deny the the listed premises of Marxism and could you honestly sign the Declaration? I have not heard you profess belief in God as a Creator or His moral absolutes or that we need His divine aid for the success of our nation.
Lets not forget a more recent event where orthodox Christians murdered close to 9,000 Muslims. Does the Srebrenica Massacre in the early 1990's ring a bell? That was predominantly Christians that committed that atrocity, not atheist. Some moral backbones there.
Lets not forget a more recent event where orthodox Christians murdered close to 9,000 Muslims. Does the Srebrenica Massacre in the early 1990's ring a bell? That was predominantly Christians that committed that atrocity, not atheist. Some moral backbones there.
Reiterating: Christianity is defined by the teachings and example of Christ. Anything that does not mirror those is a departure and is not authentic. Men though professing Christianity have departed from the teachings of Christ and have done very evil things at times. Men who abandon the thought of moral responsibility to God will become even worse--atheistic societies are very good examples of that.
Comparatively speaking:According to the authoritative “Black Book of Communism,” an estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China.
In total it is thought that Communism has accounted for over a 100 Million deaths from the early 1900s to the 1980s.
Mass killings since the advent of Christ should not be justified in any case. The atheists have typically been the most brutal of all because they do it without moral compunction.
In looking at what has been posted on this thread the Skeptic beliefs are much more closely aligned with Marxism than what our founders all signed. In fact most of the skeptics on this thread could not honestly sign the Declaration based on what they posted. Based on the clear evidence of this thread, we have a right:
1. to be skeptical of whether they espouse the American principles of free government 2. to be skeptical of the value of their belief in our free societies that are based on God given freedoms 3. to be skeptical of the scholarship which underlies their belief system- because we like our founders believe Creation and moral absolutes are self evident and beyond reasonable debate
I believe religion is "the opiate of the masses" and one should strive to experience heaven here on Earth as there is no other. I also believe in moral absolutes which are beyond reasonable debate and find these to be self evident. How are these things mutually exclusive?
Do you believe in moral absolutes based on God's moral standards as the founders? Moral absolutes outside of God are merely the product of a society. The Nazis created their own society and morals and by their own creation they were perfectly moral in gassing the Jews. So how could we try them for war crimes for obeying their own laws and morals?
I believe the moral code which is self evident embraces each member of the society. It gives every member the same opportunity to pursue health, wealth, and happiness. It does not benefit any member of that society at the expense of another member. It expects every person to honor any bond that person has made.
And yes it does align closely with the Ten Commandments because those old Hebrew Priests were nothing if not skilled sociologists. They knew what their tribe needed to become and remain cohesive.
obviously the Nazis victimized many segments of their society for the benefit of other segments.
Lets not forget a more recent event where orthodox Christians murdered close to 9,000 Muslims. Does the Srebrenica Massacre in the early 1990's ring a bell? That was predominantly Christians that committed that atrocity, not atheist. Some moral backbones there.
Reiterating: Christianity is defined by the teachings and example of Christ. Anything that does not mirror those is a departure and is not authentic. Men though professing Christianity have departed from the teachings of Christ and have done very evil things at times. Men who abandon the thought of moral responsibility to God will become even worse--atheistic societies are very good examples of that.
Comparatively speaking:According to the authoritative “Black Book of Communism,” an estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China.
In total it is thought that Communism has accounted for over a 100 Million deaths from the early 1900s to the 1980s.
Mass killings since the advent of Christ should not be justified in any case. The atheists have typically been the most brutal of all because they do it without moral compunction.
Equally as bad are those who do their killing "In the name of God",
You still do not understand the difference in believing in God but denying the Bible.
Some of the same men that you put up while trying to prove your faith have also found fault with the Bible as written. But they still believed in God.
But you can’t see that or at least won’t admit it. All you can do is call names. Call skeptics who disagree with you...communists.
You do not understand your own Faith.
I did not say, nor does the Declaration say you must believe the Bible. I only repeated what the Declaration says and noted your beliefs more closely aligned with Marxism than the founders who signed the declaration. I used the term Marxist because that is the root philosophy.An empirical observation based on evidence in this thread is not name calling. Do you deny the the listed premises of Marxism and could you honestly sign the Declaration? I have not heard you profess belief in God as a Creator or His moral absolutes or that we need His divine aid for the success of our nation.
I'm sorry if I missed this. I have not heard skeptics come forward and say: I believe in the God the Creator, who gives us our moral laws and moral rights. I believe He is the supreme judge of all. Without His divine aid our country cannot be successful.
I did hear some snippets of what is believed in part but not in whole. It seems like you guys are reluctant to make a clear statement of where you stand on every point.
Like Jesus, and the Founders, I am totally opposed to all forms of religious or irreligious oppression or persecution but I also am for building our country and society on Biblical morals. Identifying morality is inescapable because it is the basis upon which the Constitution and the laws are built.
I believe religion is "the opiate of the masses" and one should strive to experience heaven here on Earth as there is no other. I also believe in moral absolutes which are beyond reasonable debate and find these to be self evident. How are these things mutually exclusive?
They’re mutually exclusive because there is no such thing as a “moral absolutes which are beyond reasonable debate” and “self evident”. Values cannot be reached from facts or to put it another way what should be cannot be ascertained from what is.
The rational materialist (or material rationalist?) must irrationally believe that unlike everything else in that system their mind is able to transcend its Darwinian programming in order to arrive at some semblance of moral absolute for the good of all. That belief is called faith.
Everyone ultimately ends up exercising faith in one way or another. The idea that one system or making sense of this (religion) is morally superior to another (rationalistic humanism) is as subjective as the faith it takes to look at the processes of evolution andbelive that it’s products could magically transcend them.
Two faiths; one must simply decide which one is most capable of supporting a contented life... and of being scaled up to do so over long periods of time.
Livestock is given double rations on Friday afternoon as well. But some chores are unavoidable on Sabbath and allowed for the health of the herd or flock. Such as, the sheep must still be herded to pasture and water. Cattle or goats must be taken to water if no live water flows through their containment. Dairy animals have to be milked night and morning. And any young animals still dependent upon that milk must be fed.
I meant it as an example of activities that may be construed as being work. It may be construed that people who caught the stick gatherer were themselves engaged in work by arresting him....nor does it say what they were doing out of camp. There are too many holes in the account.
Not that it matters to the contradiction between a God of love who ''is not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs. ''Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' and a God who orders a man killed for the trivial offense of gathering sticks on a Sabbath....which may not even be listed on the 'not to do list'
I despise the Inquisition--they never were followers of Christ. However the scale of atrocities by atheistic societies is by far unparalleled.
Really? Evidence please.
Just try nor to use the old chestnuts of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot because Hitler was a theist, and Stalin, Pol Pot, et al, acted not on behalf of atheism but power and political ideology.
Look at the original post it was there all along.when I compared an avowed skeptic reading the Bible to an avowed communist reading our constitution. Critical thinking that requires evidence based conclusions is a good thing. Skepticism as system does not compare with critical thinking. They have a clear anti-religious agenda and therefore they are closer to Communist thought which has the same premise than impartial critical thinking. I have yet to dialogue with a skeptic who made an honest impartial inquiry to find truth.
You are trying to impose your own conditions again.
1. a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
''Skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of accepted assumptions. In everyday life, practically everyone is skeptical about some knowledge claims; but philosophical skeptics have doubted the possibility of any knowledge beyond that of the contents of directly felt experience''
I was saying you ought to study church history from original sources--the ante-Nicene and Nicene works. That is by far the largest source of original data.Skeptic scholarship assumes they can revise history to suit their objectives, But as I pointed out there history of the canon is fraught with unfounded speculation and lack of facts. Maybe they don't study history.
You assume too much. I was referring not to 'Skeptic scholarship' but to academic studies of the history and development of the bible.
Livestock is given double rations on Friday afternoon as well. But some chores are unavoidable on Sabbath and allowed for the health of the herd or flock. Such as, the sheep must still be herded to pasture and water. Cattle or goats must be taken to water if no live water flows through their containment. Dairy animals have to be milked night and morning. And any young animals still dependent upon that milk must be fed.
I meant it as an example of activities that may be construed as being work. It may be construed that people who caught the stick gatherer were themselves engaged in work by arresting him....nor does it say what they were doing out of camp. There are too many holes in the account.
Not that it matters to the contradiction between a God of love who ''is not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs. ''Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' and a God who orders a man killed for the trivial offense of gathering sticks on a Sabbath....which may not even be listed on the 'not to do list'
Gathering wood on the Sabbath, openly and in direct and flagrant disobedience to a clear command of God. Stick your finger up at God and expect Him to just let it go? Nope, it doesn’t work that way.
But, it seems you do not understand, accept and certainly don’t believe the truth of the Law and what it shows and represents. Also, you can’t understand the fulfillment of the Law.
It would seem you really don’t like the idea that sin has consequences.
Sin, flagrant disobedience and disregard for the Creator, has consequence.
God does not tolerate sin and sin is not allowed in His heaven.
At one time, I ran a large crew of men doing some difficult and somewhat dangerous work. Working for me was simple.... listen to the instructions ..... do it the right way..... if one would not do that, if he was endangering himself and the rest of the crew and he would be gone pdq.
Life is kinda that way..... you can listen and do it right or like Stevie Nicks sang.......“go your own way.”
What do you think God should do with that same guy who spent a lifetime sticking his finger up at God..... ignoring the Creator.... belittling the death of the Son on the cross...
What would you expect God to do with that man...... a man sinful by nature and to the core....
Now, I know what you would WANT God to do, but sin is not allowed in Heaven and that man has made a choice and he has made a decision to live his life without God.
I was saying you ought to study church history from original sources--the ante-Nicene and Nicene works. That is by far the largest source of original data.Skeptic scholarship assumes they can revise history to suit their objectives, But as I pointed out there history of the canon is fraught with unfounded speculation and lack of facts. Maybe they don't study history.
You assume too much. I was referring not to 'Skeptic scholarship' but to academic studies of the history and development of the bible.
Well you landed on academic error regarding the canon. A lot of revisionist history is done by skeptics so they can use it to claim they are backed by the most recent scholarship. The history of the church will show writers quoting from books of the Bible and Bible translations long before the first local council on the canon which shows your academic source as having flunked the history test.
Livestock is given double rations on Friday afternoon as well. But some chores are unavoidable on Sabbath and allowed for the health of the herd or flock. Such as, the sheep must still be herded to pasture and water. Cattle or goats must be taken to water if no live water flows through their containment. Dairy animals have to be milked night and morning. And any young animals still dependent upon that milk must be fed.
I meant it as an example of activities that may be construed as being work. It may be construed that people who caught the stick gatherer were themselves engaged in work by arresting him....nor does it say what they were doing out of camp. There are too many holes in the account.
Not that it matters to the contradiction between a God of love who ''is not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs. ''Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' and a God who orders a man killed for the trivial offense of gathering sticks on a Sabbath....which may not even be listed on the 'not to do list'
Gathering wood on the Sabbath, openly and in direct and flagrant disobedience to a clear command of God. Stick your finger up at God and expect Him to just let it go? Nope, it doesn’t work that way.
But, it seems you do not understand, accept and certainly don’t believe the truth of the Law and what it shows and represents. Also, you can’t understand the fulfillment of the Law.
It would seem you really don’t like the idea that sin has consequences.
Sin, flagrant disobedience and disregard for the Creator, has consequence.
God does not tolerate sin and sin is not allowed in His heaven.
At one time, I ran a large crew of men doing some difficult and somewhat dangerous work. Working for me was simple.... listen to the instructions ..... do it the right way..... if one would not do that, if he was endangering himself and the rest of the crew and he would be gone pdq.
Life is kinda that way..... you can listen and do it right or like Stevie Nicks sang.......“go your own way.”
We are not told about the circumstances by which the man was gathering sticks, or what the people who caught him were doing.
Not that any of this matters to the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love and the vindictive Tyrant of the old testament. If one is true, the other must be false, hence a contradiction between the two sets of descriptions.
I was saying you ought to study church history from original sources--the ante-Nicene and Nicene works. That is by far the largest source of original data.Skeptic scholarship assumes they can revise history to suit their objectives, But as I pointed out there history of the canon is fraught with unfounded speculation and lack of facts. Maybe they don't study history.
You assume too much. I was referring not to 'Skeptic scholarship' but to academic studies of the history and development of the bible.
Well you landed on academic error regarding the canon. A lot of revisionist history is done by skeptics so they can use it to claim they are backed by the most recent scholarship. The history of the church will show writers quoting from books of the Bible and Bible translations long before the first local council on the canon which shows your academic source as having flunked the history test.
No such thing. I refer to academic scholarship relating to the history and development of the collection of books that we see in the bible....including the issue of where its stories and beliefs came from, creation myths borrowed from older religions and cultures, flood legends, etc, modified and incorporated into the narrative of the Torah, etc, etc.
I hope you remember that "assume too much" when your knee bends.
You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.
I hope you remember that "assume too much" when your knee bends.
You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.
I hope you remember that "assume too much" when your knee bends.
You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.
Well, you’re not much of a bible scholar.
You don’t even have a grasp of the basics.
Meh...
The "basics" begin with the fact that there's not good evidence to support the proposition of it's literal truth.
How would 'work' even be defined....is everyone supposed to abstain from cooking meals on a Sabbath because cooking is work, lighting a fire is work?.
ignition, and/ or simply adding fuel to an existing flame is considered work. Driving ones car is forbidden because it involves ignition of fuel.
21st century Orthodox Jews consider pressing a pedestrian crossing button ( while on the way to the synagogue) as a form of work which the sabbath forbids.
I hope you remember that "assume too much" when your knee bends.
You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.
Well, you’re not much of a bible scholar.
You don’t even have a grasp of the basics.
Meh...
Sour Grapes....you are merely lashing out in frustration.
If you were actually willing to consider the issue, you'd understand that I am only quoting from the bible, that it is the bible itself that gives two opposing descriptions of its God. One that describes a Vindictive Tyrant, willing to kill for trivial reasons, punishing generations for the actions of their ancestors.... and the other, a God of Love, forgiving, one who does not keep a record, is kind and merciful to all.
This is not me making stuff up, just descriptions taken from the bible. Which I have fully supported with quotes and references.
How would 'work' even be defined....is everyone supposed to abstain from cooking meals on a Sabbath because cooking is work, lighting a fire is work?.
ignition, and/ or simply adding fuel to an existing flame is considered work. Driving ones car is forbidden because it involves ignition of fuel.
21st century Orthodox Jews consider pressing a pedestrian crossing button ( while on the way to the synagogue) as a form of work which the sabbath forbids.
Presuming that the gatherer of sticks intended to take his bundle back to camp for his fire, he wasn't doing it in secret. He would have been seen returning to camp with his load, he would know that his neighbors would see....yet he went out and did what he did....why? Perhaps because gathering sticks wasn't considered breaking the Sabbath until the point where it was put to the test?
Not that it matters to the issue of killing someone for that reason, a God of death rather than a God of Life. There being many possible punishments or penalties that don't involve taking a life (though shalt not kill)
Presuming that the gatherer of sticks intended to take his bundle back to camp for his fire, he wasn't doing it in secret. He would have been seen returning to camp with his load, he would know that his neighbors would see....yet he went out and did what he did....why? Perhaps because gathering sticks wasn't considered breaking the Sabbath until the point where it was put to the test?
With the Israelites being regular offenders of breaking the Sabbath, its not unreasonable to think that others had been working on sabbaths prior,
scriipture says they didn't know what punishment to dish out to him for working on the sabbath, so they consulted the Lord. but why?.....surely with so many offenders breaking the sabbath, they already knew what was the appropriate penalty?
which makes me think they may have been allowing many Sabbath blasphemers to skip appropriate punishment leading up to that incident. [ie;] if stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemers, they would not need to consult the Lord, .. it would just be a par for the course process to stone him....yet they were in two minds.
according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 41a), it says that he was first warned by witnesses for his blasphemous actions , but he continued collecting wood.....Thus had he stopped at the first warning , would they have shown leniency and not arrested him?
Originally Posted by TF49
Gathering wood on the Sabbath, openly and in direct and flagrant disobedience to a clear command of God. Stick your finger up at God and expect Him to just let it go? Nope, it doesn’t work that way.
Firstly, The matter /outcome is not entirely dependent on God. had they decided themselves not to stone the offender, what was God going to do about it ?...come down and do the stoning Himself?
Even after consulting the Lord, the offenders fate ultimately rested in the hands of his fellow Israelites.
the draconian church conveniently shelved the concept of 'free will' and adopted coercion.
Coulda fooled me. Free will is essential to Church theology at least since Aquinas, and is rooted in the ancient Greek philosophers.
so the church stopped operating through various methods of coercion since Aquinas? ...lol
What coercion? Subscribe to doctrine or don't. Anyway coercion doesn't vitiate free will. In Syria, today, people are coerced to death to disavow Christianity and they make a free will decision not to.
coercion (noun) the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force, intimidation, or threats. synonyms; force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, insistence, demand, etc
according to you the church stopped all that with Aquinas?
Not from the fact I originally stated,...The church employed coercion [well prior to and well beyond Aquinas.]
Originally Posted by nighthawk
The issue is free will .
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. ..hence there can be no such thing as church coerced free-will, since the two are contradictory.
Therefore we describe [as coerced] the will which does not incline this way or that of its own accord or by an internal movement of decision, ...but is forcibly driven/influenced by an external impulse.
Not from the fact I originally stated,...The church employed coercion [well prior to and well beyond Aquinas.]
Originally Posted by nighthawk
The issue is free will .
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. ..hence there can be no such thing as church coerced free-will, since the two are contradictory.
Coercion and free will are not mutually exclusive, you have free will to defy coercion. Ask any willful child.
Oh, the Society for the Propagation of the Faith does stop by every few weeks with their hot pokers but I've only been racked a few times.
Not from the fact I originally stated,...The church employed coercion [well prior to and well beyond Aquinas.]
Originally Posted by nighthawk
The issue is free will .
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. ..hence there can be no such thing as church coerced free-will, since the two are contradictory.
Coercion and free will are not mutually exclusive, you have free will to defy coercion. Ask any willful child.
Oh, the Society for the Propagation of the Faith does stop by every few weeks with their hot pokers but I've only been racked a few times.
With respect, please do some study on the subject of free will before making these claims. You are making and asserting your own rules.
I have, many these long decades. Ever since Philosophy 101 which centered on metaphysics. Free will has nothing to do with coercion. A choice may be coerced or not but it is still a choice. You are free to pick your alternative.
. A choice may be coerced or not but it is still a choice. .
influenced /coerced choice [vs] actual unimpeded free will choice,
you are ignorant of the difference.
its like cops forcing a person to sign or make a false statement they don't really want to. they can be made/influenced to do it against their own free will by threats and intimidation. otherwise known as coercion.
which makes me think they may have been allowing many Sabbath blasphemers to skip appropriate punishment leading up to that incident. [ie;] if stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemers, they would not need to consult the Lord, .. it would just be a par for the course process to stone him....yet they were in two minds.
according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 41a), it says that he was first warned by witnesses for his blasphemous actions , but he continued collecting wood.....Thus had he stopped at the first warning , would they have shown leniency and not arrested him?
Perhaps they wanted to make an example of him as a 'serial offender' (expulsion may have been an option), yet however you look at it, the Creator of the Universe ordering his death by public stoning still contradicts the claim of that same Creator being the God of Love.
Does this describe a God who would have someone killed;
''Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.'' 1 John 4:7-8
You fail to distinguish between the ability to make a choice and the act of making a choice. Here's a short, incomplete but workable definition: "Free will, in humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints."
I have, many these long decades. Ever since Philosophy 101 which centered on metaphysics. Free will has nothing to do with coercion. A choice may be coerced or not but it is still a choice. You are free to pick your alternative.
No, being coerced is not considered to be a decision freely made. Nor does this definition consider the nature of decision making within the brain, social conditioning, etc.
The church system conducted systematic covert up of sexual abuse and protected the many perpetrators.
Again the work of individuals, in defiance of the teachings if not the doctrine of the Church (I'm not a cannon lawyer).
which ever way you look it, the churchy system and its prominent clergy members allowed sexual abuse to continue and protected the in-house perps....Those clergy members form the body of the church do they not?
You can talk about the ideological doctrine- teachings , but they are not the church.
FACT remains the many perpetrators we're coercive in their ways toward abusing children.
Nature of decision making is an altogether different topic. Free will and a decision freely made are completely different things.
Look again at the definition (snitched from Encyclopedia Britannica) free will is 1) a capacity of the human intellect 2) to choose independently of natural, social, or divine restraints (different than coercion). "Free will" has nothing to do with actually making a decision or how we decide.
which ever way you look it, the churchy system and its prominent clergy members allowed sexual abuse to continue and protected the in-house perps....Those clergy members form the body of the church do they not?
You can talk about the ideological doctrine- teachings , but they are not the church.
FACT remains the many perpetrators we're coercive in their ways toward abusing children.
If they commit a grievous sin and have not repented they are not part of the body of the church. And the Church is defined by it's doctrines and teachings - that's the point of having a church. Yeah, there were and I'm sure are bad actors in the church. There are bad actors everywhere. Maybe we should condemn all of humanity and be done with it?
Repent by the sacrament of confession which requires true repentance and honest, best efforts to avoid sinning again. And doing penance. It is not the trivial thing some would make it.
Cutoff date is death - when the elevator goes either up or down. Without repentance and forgiveness you're in the position of the man gathering sticks.
I hope you remember that "assume too much" when your knee bends.
You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.
Well, you’re not much of a bible scholar.
You don’t even have a grasp of the basics.
Meh...
The "basics" begin with the fact that there's not good evidence to support the proposition of it's literal truth.
Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....
Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.
He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....
The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.
Free will means having ones own unimpeded, independent , autonomous , self-dertmination etc in decision making.
when the approach taken by a church knowingly involves coercion, those things attributed to liberty or 'free' will are lost.
Your definition is at odds with the Encyclopedia Britannica for one. It is a capacity to act, completely divorced from the action of choosing as explained above. Don't know how to make it clearer.
I hope you remember that "assume too much" when your knee bends.
You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.
DBT I have concluded that either you "cannot" logically engage in an argument or you simply "will" not. You keep blithely quoting 1Cor.13 as if it is a description of the attributes of God's love when it is not. It is a chapter whose context is talking about love between brothers in the church. It is sandwiched between two chapters talking about church life.
How God exercises His love from eternity is not the same as how we are to exercise love between brothers in time. God has always reserved for himself the right to keep a record of wrongs and to punish sin.
Even from a purely logical and common sense point of view your argument has no coherency. What exercise of government would never keep a record of wrongs or punish them? How would it make a government unloving if it did punish transgression? Should they punish on the basis of record or on the basis of a whim? We expect a loving and just government to care for it citizens by punishing transgressors from an accurate record. The same is true for God.
On the other hand this chapter makes perfect sense when applied to close interpersonal relationships. We don't keep records of our brother's shortcomings and hold them over their head or we will not have a close relationship. Because God does justly review everyone's actions there are somethings which we just let go and let them in His hands to decide and we focus on a close relationship. It's the same in the world outside of the church. It is not our duty to execute vigilante justice over our neighbors every time they offend us, nor do we say when your list of wrongs reaches x number we are going to stop being neighborly. Even this passage is balanced out by other passages in the same book where the church is asked to hold people accountable for deliberate and serious offenses in their behavior.
You hop-scotch through scripture trying to play your game of tic-tack-toe syllogisms with little regard for context, logic, or common sense.
Perhaps this approach works for an analysis with the old primer of Dick, Jane, and Sally; but it does not work for the Bible or any other book that is worthy of discussion.
Are you unable or unwilling to see the simple common sense of this?
Nature of decision making is an altogether different topic. Free will and a decision freely made are completely different things.
That remark shows a poor of understanding of the subject matter. The mechanism and information inputs of decision making is inseparable from the decisions being made. The latter cannot exist without the former.
Memory function loss, for example, destroys the ability to recognize, think coherently or make rational decisions. There are many conditions that can and do impair cognitive function and decision making.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Look again at the definition (snitched from Encyclopedia Britannica) free will is 1) a capacity of the human intellect 2) to choose independently of natural, social, or divine restraints (different than coercion). "Free will" has nothing to do with actually making a decision or how we decide.
Dictionary definitions only reflect the common usage of words and phrases. Dictionary definitions tell us nothing about the biology of decision making, the work and function of a brain, social conditioning, belief formation, biases, etc, etc.....
Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....
Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.
He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....
The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.
That's not an argument. You are offering your opinion. A poorly informed opinion at that.
The fact is, the earliest form of bible, the Codex, is not the same as the current version/s. Nor is this the only problem with the bible.
''The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
''One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.''
And that remark shows poor understanding of the distinction between the capacity to act and acting. And that's not a "dictionary definition" but a summary sentence of an encyclopedia article. Show me an authoritative definition to the contrary.
Quote
Dictionary definitions only reflect the common usage of words and phrases.
So you would concede that your usage of the phrase is an uncommon usage of the phrase?
I hope you remember that "assume too much" when your knee bends.
You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.
Well, yeah, like I said, you’re not much of a bible scholar.
Let’s just run a little test...since you think you know something about what the Bible says..... can you explain why and how God does not keep a record of wrongs? Do you presume there will no judgment?
Please use the Bible as a reference, not your own opinion.
Further, could you elaborate about what you mean when you say God is good to all..... unconditionally.....?
In your own words would be good..... not just a copy and paste....
Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....
Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.
He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....
The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.
That's not an argument. You are offering your opinion. A poorly informed opinion at that.
The fact is, the earliest form of bible, the Codex, is not the same as the current version/s. Nor is this the only problem with the bible.
''The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
''One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.''
If you think the Sinaiticus is the most authoritative text of the Bible why have you been repeatedly using the phrase, "Let he that is without sin among you cast the first stone?" The whole account of the "pericope de adultera" is not in Sinaiticus at all! This is another example of where you hop-scotch through documents and compose your tic-tack-toe syllogisms and then contradict yourself by using a phrase to make a point that is not even in the text that you consider the most authoritative.
Before you get too wound up over Sinaiticus you ought to know that the Old Latin Bible and the Latin Vulgate were based on texts that were even earlier and they have the account of the pericope de adultera in them just like it is in the AV.
So what premise are you giving up? 1. one of your pet phrases--he that is without sin among let him cast the first stone? 2. or that Sinaiticus is the most authoritative text? 3. or that your propositions are logical?
so one can delay repenting till the precipice of death comes , but you remain in the body of the church till that cut off point for repentance?
No, you're out from the point of sinning. You have until death to get back in. That's when the hammer drops.
Since natural man is born into the sin of Adam [and dead in sin], then he is effectively 'cut off' from the moment of birth [or for some pro-life types, from the moment of actual conception]
Originally Posted by nighthawk
.. Maybe we should condemn all of humanity and be done with it?
Scripture informs folks that the Lord considers wicked mankind worthy of destruction. ie; being condemned to death is all they rightfully deserve according to God.
Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....
Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.
He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....
The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.
That's not an argument. You are offering your opinion. A poorly informed opinion at that.
The fact is, the earliest form of bible, the Codex, is not the same as the current version/s. Nor is this the only problem with the bible.
''The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
''One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.''
Let's look at another example of DBT's self-vaunted scholarship: Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
The short ending of Mark omits verses 9-16, not the whole chapter, so therefore in the short ending we still have the resurrection:
5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
You should not be putting yourself forth as a scholar if you are not going to present scholarly material.
You ought to also be aware that this text was NOT truly "discovered." It was located in a monastery where it had been discarded from usage. Why do you think it was not in usage? Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that we now can conclusively establish that there were many 6 and 7th century alterations:
"A paleographical study at the British Museum in 1938 found that the text had undergone several corrections. The first corrections were done by several scribes before the manuscript left the scriptorium.[62] Readings which they introduced are designated by the siglum אa.[79] Milne and Skeat have observed that the superscription to 1 Maccabees was made by scribe D, while the text was written by scribe A.[80] Scribe D corrects his own work and that of scribe A, but scribe A limits himself to correcting his own work.[81] In the 6th or 7th century, many alterations were made (אb) – according to a colophon at the end of the book of Esdras and Esther the source of these alterations was "a very ancient manuscript that had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphylus" (martyred in 309). If this is so, material beginning with 1 Samuel to the end of Esther is Origen's copy of the Hexapla. From this colophon, the correction is concluded to have been made in Caesarea Maritima in the 6th or 7th centuries.[82] The pervasive iotacism, especially of the ει diphthong, remains uncorrected.[83]"
so one can delay repenting till the precipice of death comes , but you remain in the body of the church till that cut off point for repentance?
No, you're out from the point of sinning. You have until death to get back in. That's when the hammer drops.
Since natural man is born into the sin of Adam [and dead in sin], then he is effectively 'cut off' from the moment of birth [or for some pro-life types, from the moment of actual conception]
Originally Posted by nighthawk
.. Maybe we should condemn all of humanity and be done with it?
Scripture informs folks that the Lord considers wicked mankind worthy of destruction. ie; being condemned to death is all they rightfully deserve according to God.
Half the time you sound like a Reformer. Are you a closet 5 pointer?
Since natural man is born into the sin of Adam [and dead in sin], then he is effectively 'cut off' from the moment of birth [ Scripture informs folks that the Lord considers wicked mankind worthy of destruction. ie; being condemned to death is all they rightfully deserve according to God.
And that remark shows poor understanding of the distinction between the capacity to act and acting. And that's not a "dictionary definition" but a summary sentence of an encyclopedia article. Show me an authoritative definition to the contrary.
Quote
Dictionary definitions only reflect the common usage of words and phrases.
So you would concede that your usage of the phrase is an uncommon usage of the phrase?
There is nothing to concede. You should understand that a simple term such as 'free will' is not an explanation for human behaviour or decision making.
Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....
Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.
He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....
The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.
That's not an argument. You are offering your opinion. A poorly informed opinion at that.
The fact is, the earliest form of bible, the Codex, is not the same as the current version/s. Nor is this the only problem with the bible.
''The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
''One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.''
If you think the Sinaiticus is the most authoritative text of the Bible why have you been repeatedly using the phrase, "Let he that is without sin among you cast the first stone?" The whole account of the "pericope de adultera" is not in Sinaiticus at all! This is another example of where you hop-scotch through documents and compose your tic-tack-toe syllogisms and then contradict yourself by using a phrase to make a point that is not even in the text that you consider the most authoritative.
Before you get too wound up over Sinaiticus you ought to know that the Old Latin Bible and the Latin Vulgate were based on texts that were even earlier and they have the account of the pericope de adultera in them just like it is in the AV.
So what premise are you giving up? 1. one of your pet phrases--he that is without sin among let him cast the first stone? 2. or that Sinaiticus is the most authoritative text? 3. or that your propositions are logical?
What I pointed out has nothing to do with claims over which happens to be more authorative, just there are differences and contradictions, that the Gospels were written decades after their described events by anonymous authors and compiled by a series of councils...that the first bible is not identical to its current form, and even then there are differences, Catholic bible, etc.
Then there's the consideration that Judaism does not recognise Jesus as the promised Messiah because he did not meet the requirements.
As of course the problem of evil and the undeniable contradictions between NT descriptions of a God of Love and the vindictive tyrant of the OT.
You should understand that a simple term such as 'free will' is not an explanation for human behaviour or decision making.
Not to belabor the point but in philosophy "free will" is a term of art for a rather complex, but basic,concept. It is not a simple term.
The term itself does not describe human behaviour or explain how or why decisions are made. It's just a reference to something, which is why the free will debate has spanned centuries.
The term itself does not describe human behaviour or explain how or why decisions are made. It's just a reference to something, which is why the free will debate has spanned centuries.
It only describes an aspect of the nature of man. And I would argue is necessary in sustaining the "I-thou" relationship which is a basis of Western thought.
Again. Free will does not consider how or why decisions are made. But before we can make a decision we must have the ability to make a decision. Free will is concerned with the nature of that ability.
Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....
Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.
He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....
The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.
That's not an argument. You are offering your opinion. A poorly informed opinion at that.
The fact is, the earliest form of bible, the Codex, is not the same as the current version/s. Nor is this the only problem with the bible.
''The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
''One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.''
Let's look at another example of DBT's self-vaunted scholarship: Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
The short ending of Mark omits verses 9-16, not the whole chapter, so therefore in the short ending we still have the resurrection:
5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
You should not be putting yourself forth as a scholar if you are not going to present scholarly material.
You are avoiding the contradiction issue by deflecting problems with the bible onto your opponents. Ad Homs being a sign of frustration.
What you fail to consider is that my 'bible scholarship' - of which I have made no claims - is irrelevant to what the bible itself says about its god, which I merely quote. The quoted verses themselves paint two opposing pictures of God, two contradictory accounts of the nature and character of God.
This is what you studiously ignore. Given the nature of faith, it's not surprising.
The term itself does not describe human behaviour or explain how or why decisions are made. It's just a reference to something, which is why the free will debate has spanned centuries.
It only describes an aspect of the nature of man. And I would argue is necessary in sustaining the "I-thou" relationship which is a basis of Western thought.
Again. Free will does not consider how or why decisions are made. But before we can make a decision we must have the ability to make a decision. Free will is concerned with the nature of that ability.
The brain of a Butterfly can make decisions, a computer can select between a set of options based on the given criteria. Making decisions is not a matter of will.
Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....
Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.
He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....
The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.
That's not an argument. You are offering your opinion. A poorly informed opinion at that.
The fact is, the earliest form of bible, the Codex, is not the same as the current version/s. Nor is this the only problem with the bible.
''The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
''One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.''
Let's look at another example of DBT's self-vaunted scholarship: Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''
The short ending of Mark omits verses 9-16, not the whole chapter, so therefore in the short ending we still have the resurrection:
5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
You should not be putting yourself forth as a scholar if you are not going to present scholarly material.
You are avoiding the contradiction issue by deflecting problems with the bible onto your opponents. Ad Homs being a sign of frustration.
What you fail to consider is that my 'bible scholarship' - of which I have made no claims - is irrelevant to what the bible itself says about its god, which I merely quote. The quoted verses themselves paint two opposing pictures of God, two contradictory accounts of the nature and character of God.
This is what you studiously ignore. Given the nature of faith, it's not surprising.
Yep, just what I expected. Nothing but more empty bafflegab.
No record of wrongs? ...... God is good to all...unconditionally?
The term itself does not describe human behaviour or explain how or why decisions are made. It's just a reference to something, which is why the free will debate has spanned centuries.
It only describes an aspect of the nature of man. And I would argue is necessary in sustaining the "I-thou" relationship which is a basis of Western thought.
Again. Free will does not consider how or why decisions are made. But before we can make a decision we must have the ability to make a decision. Free will is concerned with the nature of that ability.
The brain of a Butterfly can make decisions, a computer can select between a set of options based on the given criteria. Making decisions is not a matter of will.
I have seen a number of skeptics allege that there is no such thing as free will. The individual is simply incapable of making a free will choice as he is bound by his circumstances, training, upbringing, culture and he didn’t get what he really wanted for his birthday.
What a pity..... simply a stick in the stream of life.... pushed around by circumstance.
What a pity..... simply a stick in the stream of life.... pushed around by circumstance.
the disciples bobbed around like a helpless cork in the ocean, when their fishing boat was tossed & thrown around in the stormy sea of Galilee...effectively they were being..' pushed around by circumstance'.
They ventured out in a calm sea, but circumstances then changed beyond their will.
Yep, just what I expected. Nothing but more empty bafflegab.
Still no rational argument. You offer your own 'bafflegab' even while accusing your opponent of it.
Originally Posted by TF49
No record of wrongs? ...... God is good to all...unconditionally?
What say you?
No answer from you ......
What do you mean 'no answer?'
Are you even reading what I say and what I quote in support?
It doesn't seem to be the case.
Once again. Please pay attention Keep in mind that these are not my words or claims but what your bible itself says about its god;
''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.''Psalm 145:9 - tell the stick gatherer about the tender mercy of god....ordered to be publically executed when there are other more merciful punishments available.
1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''
If you cannot see the contraction between this and OT references to its God, there is no hope for you, you have no grasp of Logic or reason.
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
The Lord is a man of war, - Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
''I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me'' Exodus 20:4
What happened to;
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matt 5:44
The term itself does not describe human behaviour or explain how or why decisions are made. It's just a reference to something, which is why the free will debate has spanned centuries.
It only describes an aspect of the nature of man. And I would argue is necessary in sustaining the "I-thou" relationship which is a basis of Western thought.
Again. Free will does not consider how or why decisions are made. But before we can make a decision we must have the ability to make a decision. Free will is concerned with the nature of that ability.
The brain of a Butterfly can make decisions, a computer can select between a set of options based on the given criteria. Making decisions is not a matter of will.
I have seen a number of skeptics allege that there is no such thing as free will. The individual is simply incapable of making a free will choice as he is bound by his circumstances, training, upbringing, culture and he didn’t get what he really wanted for his birthday.
What a pity..... simply a stick in the stream of life.... pushed around by circumstance.
You can use the term free will if you like but as a common reference it simply does nothing to explain how or why decisions are made.
Nobody is claiming that we cannot make decisions.
Obviously we can.
So can any animal that has a central nervous system and a brain.
The point being that the term 'free will' tells us nothing about the behaviour of humans or other animals. There is far more to behaviour, how it is driven or decided than what the simplistic term 'free will' can convey.....which is in fact, not much.
Again, nobody argues that we cannot make decisions. The issue is with the how and why of decision making.
[quote=Thunderstick][quote=DBT][quote=Thunderstick]An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution.
Look at the original post it was there all along.when I compared an avowed skeptic reading the Bible to an avowed communist reading our constitution. Critical thinking that requires evidence based conclusions is a good thing. Skepticism as system does not compare with critical thinking. They have a clear anti-religious agenda and therefore they are closer to Communist thought which has the same premise than impartial critical thinking. I have yet to dialogue with a skeptic who made an honest impartial inquiry to find truth.
Thank God that Thomas Jefferson lead the battle to separate church and state. Some of the rigid, my way or the highway, closed minds on this thread have even called his ideas; “rantings.” Scary.
“...legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson
“Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” ― John Adams
“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. [Letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822 - Writings 9:100--103]” ― James Madison, James Madison: Writings
“Christianity may be good and Satanism evil. Under the Constitution, however, both are neutral. This is an important, but difficult, concept for many law enforcement officers to accept. They are paid to uphold the penal code, not the Ten Commandments … The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don’t like that statement, but few can argue with it.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” ― Sandra Day O'Connor
An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution.
Nothing like it. Believers reading the bible interpret its narrative through the filter of their own beliefs, their faith, which often means ignoring or dismissing all that is inconvenient.
The proof of that lies in the numerous interpretations and offshoots in Christianity, which began almost immediately. Plus of course, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
And skeptics and communists don't have a filter lol?
Where did 'communists' come from? Did you slip that in for dramatic effect?
As for skepticism as a principle, not an ideology, that is just a way of examining claims in a logical and rational manner.
Given all the things people try to sell us as truth, a bit of applied scepticism is a healthy thing.
Look at the original post it was there all along.when I compared an avowed skeptic reading the Bible to an avowed communist reading our constitution. Critical thinking that requires evidence based conclusions is a good thing. Skepticism as system does not compare with critical thinking. They have a clear anti-religious agenda and therefore they are closer to Communist thought which has the same premise than impartial critical thinking. I have yet to dialogue with a skeptic who made an honest impartial inquiry to find truth.
Only because you happen to personally disagree. You express your own perspective without regard for the perspective of others.
When it comes to impartiality or objectivity, the sceptic can say exactly the same about you, except the sceptic would be right and you would be wrong.
You would be wrong because you interpret the bible through the filter of your faith while the sceptic justs sees what is written. There are many sceptics who were once Christians and it was the contradictions and the absurdities of the bible that brought about their de-conversion.
As I mentioned before, the cruel vindictive nature of the old testament god was noted very early in the development of Christianity. As it split into opposing groups, the Gnostics relegated Yahweh to the status of a lower god, an evil Demiurge.
''In Gnosticism the Demiurge created evil as in the Apocryphon of John (in the Nag Hammadi library), the Demiurge has the name "Yaltabaoth". Through arrogance born of stupidity, he proclaims himself as God:''
''In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God.''
The brain of a Butterfly can make decisions, a computer can select between a set of options based on the given criteria. Making decisions is not a matter of will.
Free will is 1) a capacity of the human intellect 2) to choose independently of natural, social, or divine restraints (different than coercion).
Look at 2) above. A computer is obviously restrained by the laws of physics. I would argue that a butterfly is similarly restrained by the laws of nature. People are not though their choices may be influenced by many things. We are not even restrained in our choices by a deity, heaven or hell, whichever you wish. Unless, of course, people are on par with butterflies.
The brain of a Butterfly can make decisions, a computer can select between a set of options based on the given criteria. Making decisions is not a matter of will.
Free will is 1) a capacity of the human intellect 2) to choose independently of natural, social, or divine restraints (different than coercion).
The problem being that there is always a natural restraint.
It's called the condition of your brain, its capacity and information state in any given moment in time.
You don't choose to forget where you placed your key, you cannot recall because recalling is a brain function.....but a moment later the memory may come to mind unbidden.
You are not taking into consideration the underlying unconscious processes, neural activity, that generates and forms your experience of perception, thought and decision making.
You need to define what you mean by free will; compatibalist free will, Libertarian, the ability to have chosen otherwise in any given instance in time, etc, etc.
For a start, do you believe that the world is determined or probabilistic?
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Look at 2) above. A computer is obviously restrained by the laws of physics. I would argue that a butterfly is similarly restrained by the laws of nature. People are not though their choices may be influenced by many things. We are not even restrained in our choices by a deity, heaven or hell, whichever you wish. Unless, of course, people are on par with butterflies.
The brain is also restrained by it's own architecture, which may or may not enable such abilities as math, the ability to reason, control impulses, etc.
Neural architecture being the sole source of information processing and decision making, sensory inputs, distribution and processing of sensory information, integration with memory followed by conscious awareness of that information in the form of our experience of the world and self.....
DBT, That may be if man was nothing more than a physical being. Even the ancient Greek philosophers saw a transcendent aspect in man. There is more to us than brain chemistry.(I for one have made the most damnfool, illogical, self destructive decisions even a butterfly would avoid. Nothing restrained me.)
Starman, All of the New Testament is to the contrary. No comparison to the Deity, but He thinks we're worth saving.
And now we're arguing semantics. But to say God sees us as not worth saving but in his mercy he does save us would make God irrational. Better to say we cannot achieve salvation through our own merit. When we follow the laws there is no gain as that is what is required, what we should be doing. But when we sin there is loss. We need forgiveness an mercy to get us back to even.
“Not that any of this matters to the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love and the vindictive Tyrant of the old testament. If one is true, the other must be false, hence a contradiction between the two sets of descriptions.”
You are wrong in your statement. You are not simply pointing out a contradiction. You are clearly making an interpretation of Scripture and are indeed therefore concluding there is a contradiction. If you were not interpreting scripture …...(wrongly) … you would not even note a supposed contradiction. You have concluded that God is “a tyrant” and you have concluded that the description of a “God of Love” is incongruent.
You have come to these conclusions based on…. your own opinion….. and then insert your opinion in a terribly skewed interpretation of the Bible.
Yep, not a bible scholar…..
btw…. what you have done here is called “eisegesis.”
DBT, you also posted this:
“You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.”
Here you go again…. you make a statement and this statement is indeed your “interpretation” of verses that you do not quote but make clear reference to.
You make the statement that God does “not keep a record of wrongs” and is “good to all” unconditionally.
When challenged on this, you retreated to bafflegab and obfuscation.
You have indeed interpreted and have posted that God does “not keep a record of wrongs.” You have indeed interpreted and have posted that God is “good to all” unconditionally.
Both of your interpretations are inconsistent with even a basic level of scholarship. You seemingly have no idea of the context or application.
When challenged, you retreat to “cut and paste” ….. that is all you can do …. you cannot support nor explain what you said.
The point is this: You have little knowledge of the Bible and little knowledge of biblical interpretation. But, you plunge ahead anyway in your zeal to …..what? .........influence folks with even less knowledge than you….. Is that it?
And now we're arguing semantics. But to say God sees us as not worth saving but in his mercy he does save us would make God irrational. Better to say we cannot achieve salvation through our own merit. When we follow the laws there is no gain as that is what is required, what we should be doing. But when we sin there is loss. We need forgiveness an mercy to get us back to even.
god in his omneity has a lot of options.
humans are in truth, probably not worth saving.
a poor design, or poorly implemented, or unbalanced.
maybe he was doing his best with the materials available?
anyways, he'll let people give up, give in to the mighty god.
but he is still omnipotent. he can save whether you like it or not.
a lot of folks will probably not like god's decisions. but what ever.
DBT, That may be if man was nothing more than a physical being. Even the ancient Greek philosophers saw a transcendent aspect in man. There is more to us than brain chemistry.(I for one have made the most damnfool, illogical, self destructive decisions even a butterfly would avoid. Nothing restrained me.) .
The Greeks were far ahead of their time, but that does not mean that the things they believed about the world or the nature of self and the soul are true. If you want to propose a transcendent soul as the decision maker, it needs to shown that an apparently an immaterial, non detectable entity is interacting with the brain as the Master of the system.
As it is, any significant condition within the brain, lesions, connectivity failure, chemical imbalances, etc, does in fact effect perception and decision making in very specific ways regardless of the presence of this proposed non material entity, the soul.
On the neurology of morals Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.
DBT, That may be if man was nothing more than a physical being. Even the ancient Greek philosophers saw a transcendent aspect in man. There is more to us than brain chemistry.(I for one have made the most damnfool, illogical, self destructive decisions even a butterfly would avoid. Nothing restrained me.) .
The Greeks were far ahead of their time, but that does not mean that the things they believed about the world or the nature of self and the soul are true. If you want to propose a transcendent soul as the decision maker, it needs to shown that an apparently an immaterial, non detectable entity is interacting with the brain as the Master of the system.
As it is, any significant condition within the brain, lesions, connectivity failure, chemical imbalances, etc, does in fact effect perception and decision making in very specific ways regardless of the presence of this proposed non material entity, the soul.
On the neurology of morals Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.
the ego, a bit of self-awareness does not want to die.
if it does die, it wants to know that it's going to be in a better place.
that's not a bad desire to have, to leave the urth and then move on up.
but, it's not necessarily that way at all? we're here, we're physical humans.
ego is a imagined self that doesn't want to die. that would be the end. is that true?
“Not that any of this matters to the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love and the vindictive Tyrant of the old testament. If one is true, the other must be false, hence a contradiction between the two sets of descriptions.”
You are wrong in your statement. You are not simply pointing out a contradiction. You are clearly making an interpretation of Scripture and are indeed therefore concluding there is a contradiction. If you were not interpreting scripture …...(wrongly) … you would not even note a supposed contradiction. You have concluded that God is “a tyrant” and you have concluded that the description of a “God of Love” is incongruent.
You have come to these conclusions based on…. your own opinion….. and then insert your opinion in a terribly skewed interpretation of the Bible.
Yep, not a bible scholar…..
btw…. what you have done here is called “eisegesis.”
DBT, you also posted this:
“You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.”
Here you go again…. you make a statement and this statement is indeed your “interpretation” of verses that you do not quote but make clear reference to.
You make the statement that God does “not keep a record of wrongs” and is “good to all” unconditionally.
When challenged on this, you retreated to bafflegab and obfuscation.
You have indeed interpreted and have posted that God does “not keep a record of wrongs.” You have indeed interpreted and have posted that God is “good to all” unconditionally.
Both of your interpretations are inconsistent with even a basic level of scholarship. You seemingly have no idea of the context or application.
When challenged, you retreat to “cut and paste” ….. that is all you can do …. you cannot support nor explain what you said.
The point is this: You have little knowledge of the Bible and little knowledge of biblical interpretation. But, you plunge ahead anyway in your zeal to …..what? .........influence folks with even less knowledge than you….. Is that it?
Anyway, gotta go, have another road trip.
You offer nothing more than your opinion while venting your frustration at your own inability to deal with the issue of contradictions in the bible.
By focusing your attention and your ire onto your opponent you fail to address the argument and the issues being raised.
It is not my 'scholarship' that is in question. Why you probably wonder....well, because the cruel vindictive nature of the old testament god was noted centuries ago. It is neither my idea or my interpretation of the bible.
I am not making up verses. I quote the relevant verses and it is the verses that speak for themselves.
The verses say what they say without alteration or input from me.
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction.
It is not me saying these words, or making these claims. It is right there for anyone to see and read.
It is the apologist who seeks to alter what the words and verses say and mean and transform their undeniable meaning into something more suitable for the believer, more palatable version of the bible an its history at the expense of truth
DBT, That may be if man was nothing more than a physical being. Even the ancient Greek philosophers saw a transcendent aspect in man. There is more to us than brain chemistry.(I for one have made the most damnfool, illogical, self destructive decisions even a butterfly would avoid. Nothing restrained me.) .
The Greeks were far ahead of their time, but that does not mean that the things they believed about the world or the nature of self and the soul are true. If you want to propose a transcendent soul as the decision maker, it needs to shown that an apparently an immaterial, non detectable entity is interacting with the brain as the Master of the system.
As it is, any significant condition within the brain, lesions, connectivity failure, chemical imbalances, etc, does in fact effect perception and decision making in very specific ways regardless of the presence of this proposed non material entity, the soul.
On the neurology of morals Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.
the ego, a bit of self-awareness does not want to die.
if it does die, it wants to know that it's going to be in a better place.
that's not a bad desire to have, to leave the urth and then move on up.
but, it's not necessarily that way at all? we're here, we're physical humans.
ego is a imagined self that doesn't want to die. that would be the end. is that true?
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
[quote=Thunderstick][quote=DBT][quote=Thunderstick]An avowed skeptic reading the Bible is similar to an avowed communist reading our constitution.
Look at the original post it was there all along.when I compared an avowed skeptic reading the Bible to an avowed communist reading our constitution. Critical thinking that requires evidence based conclusions is a good thing. Skepticism as system does not compare with critical thinking. They have a clear anti-religious agenda and therefore they are closer to Communist thought which has the same premise than impartial critical thinking. I have yet to dialogue with a skeptic who made an honest impartial inquiry to find truth.
Thank God that Thomas Jefferson lead the battle to separate church and state. Some of the rigid, my way or the highway, closed minds on this thread have even called his ideas; “rantings.” Scary.
“...legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson
“Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” ― John Adams
“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. [Letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822 - Writings 9:100--103]” ― James Madison, James Madison: Writings
“Christianity may be good and Satanism evil. Under the Constitution, however, both are neutral. This is an important, but difficult, concept for many law enforcement officers to accept. They are paid to uphold the penal code, not the Ten Commandments … The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don’t like that statement, but few can argue with it.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” ― Sandra Day O'Connor
First of all since we are discussing the Founders we can dismiss the comments of Carl Sagan and Sandra as irrelevant to this discussion.
Secondly, what I called the "rantings of Jefferson" were his private views on supernatural events in the Bible and not his views on good government. Most of the other founders would not have accepted his ravings on the Bible either; but they did agree with him on good moral government; so I stand in good company on that point.
Let's look again at the Declaration: All the founders signed their names to a firm persuasion of the following: Belief in a Creator, His laws of nature, that all men were created equal, self-evident truth that is beyond reasonable debate, a Supreme Judge, and that the success of the nation depended on divine providence. There's no wiggle room on these points--they all signed that document. This is the moral basis of the country and that moral basis is Biblical morality, not any other morality. The founders were abundantly clear in their writings that they believed in the morals of Jesus.
The skeptics on this thread are not coming out and saying they subscribe to each of those points declared in the Declaration, they are only agreeing to parts of it. This tells me the skepticism expressed here is incompatible with the beliefs of the Founders and that they could not have honestly signed the document which began the formation of America. If you discard the Declaration as not being a legal document in force, well then you have no historical argument either for the equality of all men. This specific portion of the document was used to abolish slavery. It was argued that every document that followed was founded upon the premise of that which gave birth to the nation which included the equality of all men. I agree with that line of reasoning.
Everything since that Declaration that they wrote also needs to be interpreted in light of that document which they signed. No one ever said later (to my knowledge) that they did not believe in what they signed.
Everything written or enacted after that point were intended to uphold "belief in a Creator, His laws of nature, that all men were created equal, self-evident truth that is beyond reasonable debate, a Supreme Judge, and that the success of the nation depended on divine providence."
When John Adams says--“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” He is not saying it was not founded on Biblical morals or the general principles of Christianity.
John Adams also says, the general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.
What Adams is saying is that we founded this nation on the principles and morals of Christianity but we did not declare it a Christian nation or a Christian government because that would require a union of Church and State and that is what they wanted to avoid. However neither did they wish to establish an amoral or irreligious government either. They founded the nation on the general moral principles of the Christianity but the religion or faith of Christianity was kept outside the sphere of the government. No one had done this before in history.
James Madison also professed his personal beliefs as follows: A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.
I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Madison is supporting the Christian cause and influence in this country but yet he is still opposed to making Christianity a state religion or a test of office. There is no conflict to in being a strong Christian and also holding to the separation of Church and state.
In his memorial and remonstrance he says, The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.
Jefferson He supported the morals of Jesus: The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.
I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
So while Jefferson was strident about the separation of church and state he was also equally adamant about building a moral society on the principles that Jesus taught.
All of this goes again to prove--the skepticism expressed on this thread does not embody the founding ideals of America. However at the same we are not a Christian nation in the religious sense of requiring the Christian faith as a test of office. The separation of the Church and State was always intended. But think about that phrase--they did not say the separation of paganism and the state, or the separation of Islam and the state. It is very clear by this phrase that they expected most of the nation would be Christian. But they also intended for there to be freedom of religion of any kind, providing it would not be allowed to overthrow our moral basis of government.
And now we're arguing semantics. But to say God sees us as not worth saving but in his mercy he does save us would make God irrational. Better to say we cannot achieve salvation through our own merit. When we follow the laws there is no gain as that is what is required, what we should be doing. But when we sin there is loss. We need forgiveness an mercy to get us back to even.
god in his omneity has a lot of options.
humans are in truth, probably not worth saving.
a poor design, or poorly implemented, or unbalanced.
maybe he was doing his best with the materials available?
anyways, he'll let people give up, give in to the mighty god.
but he is still omnipotent. he can save whether you like it or not.
a lot of folks will probably not like god's decisions. but what ever.
Gus,
You are presuming any gods exist, a claim which has not been supported by sufficient evidence within this thread.
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus. [/quote]
i just hate it when people of the urth attack the mighty YHWH over and over!
of course his son was different from him. ever considered 23&me, or ancestry?
the female and male have their own dna. and it gets passed on.
so, jesus was half yhwh and half human: a fusion of god/alien and mary the virgin.
there's things going on here that a lot of the elites don't really want to talk about?
And now we're arguing semantics. But to say God sees us as not worth saving but in his mercy he does save us would make God irrational. Better to say we cannot achieve salvation through our own merit. When we follow the laws there is no gain as that is what is required, what we should be doing. But when we sin there is loss. We need forgiveness an mercy to get us back to even.
god in his omneity has a lot of options.
humans are in truth, probably not worth saving.
a poor design, or poorly implemented, or unbalanced.
maybe he was doing his best with the materials available?
anyways, he'll let people give up, give in to the mighty god.
but he is still omnipotent. he can save whether you like it or not.
a lot of folks will probably not like god's decisions. but what ever.
Gus,
You are presuming any gods exist, a claim which has not been supported by sufficient evidence within this thread.
A statement which all the founders would dispute as ludicrous as they held the belief in a Creator to be a self-evident truth. And they were right as no mathematical equation can ever be done to illustrate how biological life can start without there being an eternal uncaused first cause or how life can exist without all the anthropic principles in place.
“Not that any of this matters to the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love and the vindictive Tyrant of the old testament. If one is true, the other must be false, hence a contradiction between the two sets of descriptions.”
You are wrong in your statement. You are not simply pointing out a contradiction. You are clearly making an interpretation of Scripture and are indeed therefore concluding there is a contradiction. If you were not interpreting scripture …...(wrongly) … you would not even note a supposed contradiction. You have concluded that God is “a tyrant” and you have concluded that the description of a “God of Love” is incongruent.
You have come to these conclusions based on…. your own opinion….. and then insert your opinion in a terribly skewed interpretation of the Bible.
Yep, not a bible scholar…..
btw…. what you have done here is called “eisegesis.”
DBT, you also posted this:
“You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.”
Here you go again…. you make a statement and this statement is indeed your “interpretation” of verses that you do not quote but make clear reference to.
You make the statement that God does “not keep a record of wrongs” and is “good to all” unconditionally.
When challenged on this, you retreated to bafflegab and obfuscation.
You have indeed interpreted and have posted that God does “not keep a record of wrongs.” You have indeed interpreted and have posted that God is “good to all” unconditionally.
Both of your interpretations are inconsistent with even a basic level of scholarship. You seemingly have no idea of the context or application.
When challenged, you retreat to “cut and paste” ….. that is all you can do …. you cannot support nor explain what you said.
The point is this: You have little knowledge of the Bible and little knowledge of biblical interpretation. But, you plunge ahead anyway in your zeal to …..what? .........influence folks with even less knowledge than you….. Is that it?
Anyway, gotta go, have another road trip.
I have concluded you cannot have a reasonable discussion with DBT.
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
LOL this is humorous. The epistles of Paul were being quoted by Ignatius before the times of Marcion. Where do these people come up with this drivel?
And now we're arguing semantics. But to say God sees us as not worth saving but in his mercy he does save us would make God irrational. Better to say we cannot achieve salvation through our own merit. When we follow the laws there is no gain as that is what is required, what we should be doing. But when we sin there is loss. We need forgiveness an mercy to get us back to even.
god in his omneity has a lot of options.
humans are in truth, probably not worth saving.
a poor design, or poorly implemented, or unbalanced.
maybe he was doing his best with the materials available?
anyways, he'll let people give up, give in to the mighty god.
but he is still omnipotent. he can save whether you like it or not.
a lot of folks will probably not like god's decisions. but what ever.
Gus,
You are presuming any gods exist, a claim which has not been supported by sufficient evidence within this thread.
A statement which all the founders would dispute as ludicrous as they held the belief in a Creator to be a self-evident truth.
Not true as was established earlier. And even if it was, at best it's an appeal to authority, in an area where they are not a knowledgeable authority, especially not by today's standards. Science is not determined by politicians.
Quote
And they were right as no mathematical equation can ever be done to illustrate how biological life can start without there being an eternal uncaused first cause or how life can exist without all the anthropic principles in place.
This is a straw-man argument. The realm of science is not limited to just math. I especially like how you mixed math and biology for your "mathamatical biological equation", to form a straw-red herring leading into your Argument from Ignorance.
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
LOL this is humorous. The epistles of Paul were being quoted by Ignatius before the times of Marcion. Where do these people come up with this drivel?
Did he??
Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the authenticity of all the Ignatian epistles has come under intense scrutiny. John Calvin called the epistles "rubbish published under Ignatius’ name."[4]:119 Protestants have tended to want to deny the authenticity of the epistles because they seem to attest to the existence of a monarchical episcopate in the second century.
In 1886, Presbyterian minister and church historian William Dool Killen published an essay extensively arguing that none of the epistles attributed to Ignatius are authentic. Instead, he argued that Callixtus, bishop of Rome, forged the letters around AD 220 to garner support for a monarchical episcopate, modeling the renowned Saint Ignatius after his own life to give precedent for his own authority.[30]:137 Killen contrasted this episcopal polity with the presbyterian polity in the writings of Polycarp.[30]:127
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
I'm not a Marxist.
I'm a Capitalist.
Your inability to imagine Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Veteran who's also Atheist say volumes about your closed mind.
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
LOL this is humorous. The epistles of Paul were being quoted by Ignatius before the times of Marcion. Where do these people come up with this drivel?
Did he??
Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the authenticity of all the Ignatian epistles has come under intense scrutiny. John Calvin called the epistles "rubbish published under Ignatius’ name."[4]:119 Protestants have tended to want to deny the authenticity of the epistles because they seem to attest to the existence of a monarchical episcopate in the second century.
In 1886, Presbyterian minister and church historian William Dool Killen published an essay extensively arguing that none of the epistles attributed to Ignatius are authentic. Instead, he argued that Callixtus, bishop of Rome, forged the letters around AD 220 to garner support for a monarchical episcopate, modeling the renowned Saint Ignatius after his own life to give precedent for his own authority.[30]:137 Killen contrasted this episcopal polity with the presbyterian polity in the writings of Polycarp.[30]:127
Oh boy and what do you think those same guys would say about Marcion? They certainly would not consider him the author of the Pauline epistles. The Protestants as a whole, when laying aside their polemics, have recognized 7 of them as legitimate as have most other scholars. They were right to question them because others were forged under his name. "The following seven epistles preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic, since they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch
But this still does not solve your dilemma, because Polycarp who also lived before Marcion quotes Paul. Polycarp 1:3 though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.
You won't find any early writer of note who considers Marcion the author of the Pauline epistles.
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
LOL this is humorous. The epistles of Paul were being quoted by Ignatius before the times of Marcion. Where do these people come up with this drivel?
Did he??
Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the authenticity of all the Ignatian epistles has come under intense scrutiny. John Calvin called the epistles "rubbish published under Ignatius’ name."[4]:119 Protestants have tended to want to deny the authenticity of the epistles because they seem to attest to the existence of a monarchical episcopate in the second century.
In 1886, Presbyterian minister and church historian William Dool Killen published an essay extensively arguing that none of the epistles attributed to Ignatius are authentic. Instead, he argued that Callixtus, bishop of Rome, forged the letters around AD 220 to garner support for a monarchical episcopate, modeling the renowned Saint Ignatius after his own life to give precedent for his own authority.[30]:137 Killen contrasted this episcopal polity with the presbyterian polity in the writings of Polycarp.[30]:127
Oh boy and what do you think those same guys would say about Marcion? They certainly would not consider him the author of the Pauline epistles. The Protestants as a whole, when laying aside their polemics, have recognized 7 of them as legitimate as have most other scholars. They were right to question them because others were forged under his name. "The following seven epistles preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic, since they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch
But this still does not solve your dilemma, because Polycarp who also lived before Marcion quotes Paul. Polycarp 1:3 though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.
You won't find any early writer of note who considers Marcion the author of the Pauline epistles.
Polycarp was only a few years younger than Marcion and did most of his writing at the end of his life.
Besides, it's not my delima, I just provided an alternative hypothesis of a current Biblical Scholar. If you want his detailed 600 page defense of the hypothesis, buy the book.
“Not that any of this matters to the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love and the vindictive Tyrant of the old testament. If one is true, the other must be false, hence a contradiction between the two sets of descriptions.”
You are wrong in your statement. You are not simply pointing out a contradiction. You are clearly making an interpretation of Scripture and are indeed therefore concluding there is a contradiction. If you were not interpreting scripture …...(wrongly) … you would not even note a supposed contradiction. You have concluded that God is “a tyrant” and you have concluded that the description of a “God of Love” is incongruent.
You have come to these conclusions based on…. your own opinion….. and then insert your opinion in a terribly skewed interpretation of the Bible.
Yep, not a bible scholar…..
btw…. what you have done here is called “eisegesis.”
DBT, you also posted this:
“You yourself happen to be assuming the vindictive tyrant over the God of Love, who does not keep a record of wrongs and is 'good to all' unconditionally.”
Here you go again…. you make a statement and this statement is indeed your “interpretation” of verses that you do not quote but make clear reference to.
You make the statement that God does “not keep a record of wrongs” and is “good to all” unconditionally.
When challenged on this, you retreated to bafflegab and obfuscation.
You have indeed interpreted and have posted that God does “not keep a record of wrongs.” You have indeed interpreted and have posted that God is “good to all” unconditionally.
Both of your interpretations are inconsistent with even a basic level of scholarship. You seemingly have no idea of the context or application.
When challenged, you retreat to “cut and paste” ….. that is all you can do …. you cannot support nor explain what you said.
The point is this: You have little knowledge of the Bible and little knowledge of biblical interpretation. But, you plunge ahead anyway in your zeal to …..what? .........influence folks with even less knowledge than you….. Is that it?
Anyway, gotta go, have another road trip.
I have concluded you cannot have a reasonable discussion with DBT.
Only because you are unwilling to consider what is being pointed out.
You and other believers cannot contemplate the possibility that there are contradictions in the bible because it puts your own faith into question.
Yet the contradictions are there.
They are not my contradictions. These are contradictions that were recognized centuries ago. Contradictions that have never been resolved.
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
I'm not a Marxist.
I'm a Capitalist.
Your inability to imagine Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Veteran who's also Atheist say volumes about your closed mind.
I did not say anything about capitalism. I am simply saying that skepticism which denies God and moral absolutes and which is totally materialistic in its approach is a Marxist type of skepticism. Our founders were certainly critical thinking people and founded our nation on their belief in those self evident truths and on those premises wrote a Constitution. Are you accusing them of being close minded?
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
Questioning assumptions and beliefs has nothing to do with Marxism or any political ideology. It is just healthy scepticism.
The very same thing you do when it comes to other religions and other holy books....are you a Marxist because you question the beliefs of Hinduism?
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
I'm not a Marxist.
I'm a Capitalist.
Your inability to imagine Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Veteran who's also Atheist say volumes about your closed mind.
I did not say anything about capitalism. I am simply saying that skepticism which denies God and moral absolutes and which is totally materialistic in its approach is a Marxist type of skepticism. Our founders were certainly critical thinking people and founded our nation on their belief in those self evident truths and on those premises wrote a Constitution. Are you accusing them of being close minded?
There's nothing "Marxist" about my skepticism, and your assertion that there is, is a slanderous ad hominem attack.
You have much more in common with the Marxist than I, because you both worship untrue propositions damaging to the well being of people.
Critical thinking that acknowledges truth and evidence based conclusions tests everything, including skepticism. The Bible says, prove all things, hold fast that which is good.
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
I'm not a Marxist.
I'm a Capitalist.
Your inability to imagine Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Veteran who's also Atheist say volumes about your closed mind.
I did not say anything about capitalism. I am simply saying that skepticism which denies God and moral absolutes and which is totally materialistic in its approach is a Marxist type of skepticism. Our founders were certainly critical thinking people and founded our nation on their belief in those self evident truths and on those premises wrote a Constitution. Are you accusing them of being close minded?
There's nothing "Marxist" about my skepticism, and your assertion that there is, is a slanderous ad hominem attack.
You have much more in common with the Marxist than I, because you both worship untrue propositions damaging to the well being of people.
I have nothing in common with the basic premises of Marxism below. But some here have repeatedly shown evidence of agreement with their theology. This is simply stating facts. When someone does not like the facts they typically say they are being slandered.
1.Marxists stand on the basis of philosophical materialism, which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today. Nature furnishes its own explanations and it furnishes them in great abundance. 2. The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism. 3.So, in spite of all this scientific development, why does Religion still have a grip on the minds of millions? Religion offers men and women the consolation of a life after death. 4.Where religion teaches us to lift our eyes to the heavens, Marxism tells us to fight for a better life on earth. Marxists believe that men and women should fight to transform their lives and to create a genuinely human society which would permit the human race to lift itself up to its true stature. We believe that men and women have only one life, and should dedicate themselves to making this life beautiful and self-fulfilling. If you like, we are fighting for a paradise in this life, because we know there is no other. 5. Lenin also pointed out that Engels recommended that the revolutionary party should carry out a struggle against religion: "The party of the proletariat demands that the state shall declare religion a private matter, but it does not for a moment regard the question of a fight against the opium of the people - the fight against religious superstition, etc., - as a private matter. The opportunists have so distorted the question as to make it appear that the Social Democratic Party regards religion as a private matter." Lenin on Religion pg 18 6.In the struggle of science against religion - that is to say, the struggle of rational thought against irrationality - Marxism sides wholeheartedly with science. 7. From the Communist manifesto:Question 22. Do Communists reject existing religions? Answer: All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them. 8.Vladimir Lenin was highly critical of religion, saying in his book Religion: Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.[7] In The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, he wrote: Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[8]
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
I'm not a Marxist.
I'm a Capitalist.
Your inability to imagine Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Veteran who's also Atheist say volumes about your closed mind.
Believers try every trick in the book as a means to avoid facing the undeniable fact of contradictions in the bible.
Critical thinking that acknowledges truth and evidence based conclusions tests everything, including skepticism. The Bible says, prove all things, hold fast that which is good.
So why are you unwilling to apply critical thinking to your own faith? I'm sure that you want to think that you are, but to an objective observer it is clear that you are defending your faith by attempting to rationalize problems that are clearly there, problems that were raised centuries ago and never resolved because they cannot be resolved.
DBT I don't think you are a challenge to anyone's faith or logic..
Only in the legend of your own mind. The issue is not me. The issue is contradictions in the bible, which are there regardless of me. I do nothing more than present them as they are.
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
Did he??
Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the authenticity of all the Ignatian epistles has come under intense scrutiny. John Calvin called the epistles "rubbish published under Ignatius’ name."[4]:119 Protestants have tended to want to deny the authenticity of the epistles because they seem to attest to the existence of a monarchical episcopate in the second century.
In 1886, Presbyterian minister and church historian William Dool Killen published an essay extensively arguing that none of the epistles attributed to Ignatius are authentic. Instead, he argued that Callixtus, bishop of Rome, forged the letters around AD 220 to garner support for a monarchical episcopate, modeling the renowned Saint Ignatius after his own life to give precedent for his own authority.[30]:137 Killen contrasted this episcopal polity with the presbyterian polity in the writings of Polycarp.[30]:127
it Oh boy and what do you think those same guys would say about Marcion? They certainly would not consider him the author of the Pauline epistles. The Protestants as a whole, when laying aside their polemics, have recognized 7 of them as legitimate as have most other scholars. They were right to question them because others were forged under his name. "The following seven epistles preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic, since they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch
But this still does not solve your dilemma, because Polycarp who also lived before Marcion quotes Paul. Polycarp 1:3 though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.
You won't find any early writer of note who considers Marcion the author of the Pauline epistles.
Polycarp was only a few years younger than Marcion and did most of his writing at the end of his life.
Besides, it's not my delima, I just provided an alternative hypothesis of a current Biblical Scholar. If you want his detailed 600 page defense of the hypothesis, buy the book.
Marcion could not have written epistles before Polycarp wrote his epistles--that is untenable.
Look at this also from another angle. Writers such Tertullian and Ireneaus considered Marcion a heretic because he left the apostolic teaching and founded his own religion. Do you really think they would accept Marcion as the writer of Paul's epistles while quoting from Paul and calling him a heretic? There is no logic in that position at all or in a 600 page book trying to prove it.
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
I'm not a Marxist.
I'm a Capitalist.
Your inability to imagine Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Veteran who's also Atheist say volumes about your closed mind.
I did not say anything about capitalism. I am simply saying that skepticism which denies God and moral absolutes and which is totally materialistic in its approach is a Marxist type of skepticism. Our founders were certainly critical thinking people and founded our nation on their belief in those self evident truths and on those premises wrote a Constitution. Are you accusing them of being close minded?
There's nothing "Marxist" about my skepticism, and your assertion that there is, is a slanderous ad hominem attack.
You have much more in common with the Marxist than I, because you both worship untrue propositions damaging to the well being of people.
I have nothing in common with the basic premises of Marxism below. But some here have repeatedly shown evidence of agreement with their theology. This is simply stating facts. When someone does not like the facts they typically say they are being slandered.
1.Marxists stand on the basis of philosophical materialism, which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today. Nature furnishes its own explanations and it furnishes them in great abundance. 2. The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism. 3.So, in spite of all this scientific development, why does Religion still have a grip on the minds of millions? Religion offers men and women the consolation of a life after death. 4.Where religion teaches us to lift our eyes to the heavens, Marxism tells us to fight for a better life on earth. Marxists believe that men and women should fight to transform their lives and to create a genuinely human society which would permit the human race to lift itself up to its true stature. We believe that men and women have only one life, and should dedicate themselves to making this life beautiful and self-fulfilling. If you like, we are fighting for a paradise in this life, because we know there is no other. 5. Lenin also pointed out that Engels recommended that the revolutionary party should carry out a struggle against religion: "The party of the proletariat demands that the state shall declare religion a private matter, but it does not for a moment regard the question of a fight against the opium of the people - the fight against religious superstition, etc., - as a private matter. The opportunists have so distorted the question as to make it appear that the Social Democratic Party regards religion as a private matter." Lenin on Religion pg 18 6.In the struggle of science against religion - that is to say, the struggle of rational thought against irrationality - Marxism sides wholeheartedly with science. 7. From the Communist manifesto:Question 22. Do Communists reject existing religions? Answer: All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them. 8.Vladimir Lenin was highly critical of religion, saying in his book Religion: Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.[7] In The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, he wrote: Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[8]
It doesn't change the fact, that at the core, you are both still wrong in a damaging way, and THAT's what you have in common with the Marxist.
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
I'm not a Marxist.
I'm a Capitalist.
Your inability to imagine Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Veteran who's also Atheist say volumes about your closed mind.
I did not say anything about capitalism. I am simply saying that skepticism which denies God and moral absolutes and which is totally materialistic in its approach is a Marxist type of skepticism. Our founders were certainly critical thinking people and founded our nation on their belief in those self evident truths and on those premises wrote a Constitution. Are you accusing them of being close minded?
There's nothing "Marxist" about my skepticism, and your assertion that there is, is a slanderous ad hominem attack.
You have much more in common with the Marxist than I, because you both worship untrue propositions damaging to the well being of people.
Yes, indeed. Slander, it appears, becomes a means of defending the faith whenever a discussion or debate becomes uncomfortable or challenging for believers.
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
Did he??
Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the authenticity of all the Ignatian epistles has come under intense scrutiny. John Calvin called the epistles "rubbish published under Ignatius’ name."[4]:119 Protestants have tended to want to deny the authenticity of the epistles because they seem to attest to the existence of a monarchical episcopate in the second century.
In 1886, Presbyterian minister and church historian William Dool Killen published an essay extensively arguing that none of the epistles attributed to Ignatius are authentic. Instead, he argued that Callixtus, bishop of Rome, forged the letters around AD 220 to garner support for a monarchical episcopate, modeling the renowned Saint Ignatius after his own life to give precedent for his own authority.[30]:137 Killen contrasted this episcopal polity with the presbyterian polity in the writings of Polycarp.[30]:127
it Oh boy and what do you think those same guys would say about Marcion? They certainly would not consider him the author of the Pauline epistles. The Protestants as a whole, when laying aside their polemics, have recognized 7 of them as legitimate as have most other scholars. They were right to question them because others were forged under his name. "The following seven epistles preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic, since they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch
But this still does not solve your dilemma, because Polycarp who also lived before Marcion quotes Paul. Polycarp 1:3 though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.
You won't find any early writer of note who considers Marcion the author of the Pauline epistles.
Polycarp was only a few years younger than Marcion and did most of his writing at the end of his life.
Besides, it's not my delima, I just provided an alternative hypothesis of a current Biblical Scholar. If you want his detailed 600 page defense of the hypothesis, buy the book.
Marcion could not have written epistles before Polycarp wrote his epistles--that is untenable.
Look at this also from another angle. Writers such Tertullian and Ireneaus considered Marcion a heretic because he left the apostolic teaching and founded his own religion. Do you really think they would accept Marcion as the writer of Paul's epistles while quoting from Paul and calling him a heretic? There is no logic in that position at all or in a 600 page book trying to prove it.
And both Tertullian and Ireneus were considered heritics by later Church leaders as well, so, by your own logic, you must discount everything they ever wrote.
There is a Marxist type of Skepticism that denies everything it does not want to believe, regardless of the evidence, in order to promote its liberation theology.
Then there is also evidence based critical thinking that is skeptical of the above and sees liberation theology as the opposite of real freedom that is based on self-evident truth.
I'm not a Marxist.
I'm a Capitalist.
Your inability to imagine Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Veteran who's also Atheist say volumes about your closed mind.
I did not say anything about capitalism. I am simply saying that skepticism which denies God and moral absolutes and which is totally materialistic in its approach is a Marxist type of skepticism. Our founders were certainly critical thinking people and founded our nation on their belief in those self evident truths and on those premises wrote a Constitution. Are you accusing them of being close minded?
There's nothing "Marxist" about my skepticism, and your assertion that there is, is a slanderous ad hominem attack.
You have much more in common with the Marxist than I, because you both worship untrue propositions damaging to the well being of people.
Yes, indeed. Slander, it appears, becomes a means of defending the faith whenever a discussion or debate becomes uncomfortable or challenging for believers.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
And both Tertullian and Ireneus were considered heritics by later Church leaders as well, so, by your own logic, you must discount everything they ever wrote.
My point is based solely on the fact that they, as antagonists to Marcion, would not quote from Paul if they believed Marcion was the author of Paul. Additionally, Tertullian completed most of his writings before joining the Montanists. Many in the church still cited his writings and appreciated them.
I never heard of an indication of Irenaeus being considered a heretic by the church.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
As noted before, Christianity is defined by Christ and His teachings. He never performed such acts and therefore anyone doing those things were departing from the example of Christ and not following it.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
As noted before, Christianity is defined by Christ and His teachings. He never performed such acts and therefore anyone doing those things were departing from the example of Christ and not following it.
So of the Marxist theology that I cited which basic premises do you reject? I heard a lot of support for those philosophical sentiments but I have yet to hear a clear rejection of them. We are not talking about economics, only philosophy.
Do you reject these statements? ... which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today.
The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism.
All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
As noted before, Christianity is defined by Christ and His teachings. He never performed such acts and therefore anyone doing those things were departing from the example of Christ and not following it.
Like I predicted, "True Scotsman" Fallacy.
Yes. It's so predicable that you don't even need to be a prophet to see it coming. To think that those who cling to faith make mention critical thinking....
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
As noted before, Christianity is defined by Christ and His teachings. He never performed such acts and therefore anyone doing those things were departing from the example of Christ and not following it.
Like I predicted, "True Scotsman" Fallacy.
Sir it is what the Bible says--not my merely my position.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
So of the Marxist theology that I cited which basic premises do you reject? I heard a lot of support for those philosophical sentiments but I have yet to hear a clear rejection of them. We are not talking about economics, only philosophy.
Do you reject these statements? ... which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today.
The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism.
All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples.
Religion is the opium of the people.
Marxism goes well beyond question faith. Its manifesto is political and social ideology. It is a mistake to conflate the two. You are making a category error.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
As noted before, Christianity is defined by Christ and His teachings. He never performed such acts and therefore anyone doing those things were departing from the example of Christ and not following it.
Like I predicted, "True Scotsman" Fallacy.
Sir it is what the Bible says--not my merely my position.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Yet you deny what it says in the bible. You deny the presence of two opposing descriptions of its god, even in the face of evidence.
So of the Marxist theology that I cited which basic premises do you reject? I heard a lot of support for those philosophical sentiments but I have yet to hear a clear rejection of them. We are not talking about economics, only philosophy.
Do you reject these statements? ... which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today.
The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism.
All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples.
Religion is the opium of the people.
Marxism goes well beyond question faith. Its manifesto is political and social ideology. It is a mistake to conflate the two. You are making a category error.
I am aware of the differences between you guys and Marxists on economics, politics, and socialism. Because of those difference you will never be true Marxists. I get that.
I'm speaking only about the philosophy of Marxism and its views on faith and religion.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
As noted before, Christianity is defined by Christ and His teachings. He never performed such acts and therefore anyone doing those things were departing from the example of Christ and not following it.
Like I predicted, "True Scotsman" Fallacy.
Sir it is what the Bible says--not my merely my position.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Yet you deny what it says in the bible. You deny the presence of two opposing descriptions of its god, even in the face of evidence.
A number here have been generous with their time in explaining why your propositions are not sustainable or credible.
As I reflect on some of my recent posts I can see that my tone was not as courteous as it should have been. For this I must apologize--especially to DBT and Antelope Sniper.
So of the Marxist theology that I cited which basic premises do you reject? I heard a lot of support for those philosophical sentiments but I have yet to hear a clear rejection of them. We are not talking about economics, only philosophy.
Do you reject these statements? ... which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today.
The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism.
All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples.
Religion is the opium of the people.
Marxism goes well beyond question faith. Its manifesto is political and social ideology. It is a mistake to conflate the two. You are making a category error.
I am aware of the differences between you guys and Marxists on economics, politics, and socialism. Because of those difference you will never be true Marxists. I get that.
I'm speaking only about the philosophy of Marxism and its views on faith and religion.
I don't think you do. If you did, you wouldn't continue your attempts to paint us with the Marxist brush. That's the purpose of your Cherry Picking from a commentary on the Communist Manifesto.
Regardless of your dishonest tactic, let me try to answer you in the general.
I take issue with politicians who make overly sweeping statements such as "All Religions......", There are many religions, each of which must stand or fall on the merits of it's own claims as they stack up against the evidence. Unlike Marx, I don't limit the definition of religions to only those who make supernatural claims. The philosophies of Marxism and "Global Climate Change" are effectively religions, both with many claims not sufficiently in evidence.
Like wise, there are "Philosophical Christians" who don't believe in any of the supernatural claims of the Bible, but see it entirely as allegory which is just one example for which I don't feel the above statement adequately takes into account.
Like wise, I extend the same standard to the various philosophical schools. Each must stand on the merit of it's own claims as they stack up against the evidence, and it's not the proper place of government to dictate the belief system, be it religious or philosophical, of the governed.
As for your assertion that your Cherry Picked out of context quote regarding religion as the opiote of the masses being the conerstone of Marxism, considering how the work it appeared in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, wasn't published until after Marx death, it's absurd on it's face.
Of course you've probably never read the quote in context, and have no idea what Marx was really saying.
Quote
The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added):
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
In other words, as suffering declines, we should expect a natural decline in religion. I'm not sure that claims holding up to the test of time. Although the old religions maybe in decline, other, such as the religion of Global Climate Change as ascending.
The goal of the modern skeptic is to believe as many things that are true, and as few things that are untrue as possible, and each proposition must meet it's own burden of proof.
Consequently, for the majority of modern skeptics, they are not skeptics because they are atheist, they become atheist because they are skeptics, due to theistic claims failing to meet their burden of proof.
To me, the propositions of Marxism and Theism are separate and distinct, and one does not depend upon the other.
When you attempt to tie my position on Theism to Marxism, I see it as the moral and philosophical and tactical equivalent of the political left calling everyone who voted for Trump a Racist.
I haven't attempted to pin the sins of White Supremacist, the KKK and the Nazi's (yes, Hitler was Catholic) on you, so please stop pinning the sins of Stalin and Mao on me.
Faith is the substance of things of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
Which shows a flawed understanding of the nature of faith and what the verse is telling us.
I'll try to help.
''Faith is the substance of things of things hoped for'' - describes faith the substance or essence of things hoped for.
''the evidence of things not seen'' - tells us that faith is own 'evidence,' therefore its own justification
The verse does not speak of independent verifiable evidence, just faith as its own justification.
Which is in line with the given definition of faith and accepted meaning of the word;
ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith 1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return)
As I reflect on some of my recent posts I can see that my tone was not as courteous as it should have been. For this I must apologize--especially to DBT and Antelope Sniper.
DBT, That may be if man was nothing more than a physical being. Even the ancient Greek philosophers saw a transcendent aspect in man. There is more to us than brain chemistry.(I for one have made the most damnfool, illogical, self destructive decisions even a butterfly would avoid. Nothing restrained me.) .
The Greeks were far ahead of their time, but that does not mean that the things they believed about the world or the nature of self and the soul are true. If you want to propose a transcendent soul as the decision maker, it needs to shown that an apparently an immaterial, non detectable entity is interacting with the brain as the Master of the system.
As it is, any significant condition within the brain, lesions, connectivity failure, chemical imbalances, etc, does in fact effect perception and decision making in very specific ways regardless of the presence of this proposed non material entity, the soul.
On the neurology of morals Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.
Then there peer reviewed scientific studies of near death experiences and terminal lucidity you have to deal with.
No, not that th Greeks had all the answers, but since the ancient Greeks formed the basis of Western thought you have to do battle with them first.
There are five Transcendental Desires that were recognized around 400 BC by Plato and Aristotle. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other philosophers have spoken of these same desires through the centuries.
What are these transcendental desires? They are our built-in desires for:
Perfect and unconditional Truth Perfect and unconditional Love Perfect and unconditional Justice (Goodness) Perfect and unconditional Beauty Perfect and unconditional Being (Home)
How can we have transcendent desires without some sort of transcendent nature?
So of the Marxist theology that I cited which basic premises do you reject? I heard a lot of support for those philosophical sentiments but I have yet to hear a clear rejection of them. We are not talking about economics, only philosophy.
Do you reject these statements? ... which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today.
The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism.
All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples.
Religion is the opium of the people.
These statements are more or less true.
Now you tell us how you have mixed up Marxism with Deism.
No, not that th Greeks had all the answers, but since the ancient Greeks formed the basis of Western thought you have to do battle with them first.
There are five Transcendental Desires that were recognized around 400 BC by Plato and Aristotle. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other philosophers have spoken of these same desires through the centuries.
What are these transcendental desires? They are our built-in desires for:
Perfect and unconditional Truth Perfect and unconditional Love Perfect and unconditional Justice (Goodness) Perfect and unconditional Beauty Perfect and unconditional Being (Home)
How can we have transcendent desires without some sort of transcendent nature?
So I guess you're applying that to all of Philosophy. If it's difficult to deal with simply dismiss it all as a fraud. Nice.
Of course logic is one of those freaky Greeky ideas - nothing but misleading. Dismiss logic out of hand. Things are the way they are because I say it is so.
That's not what you said "2 something, especially a clue, that is or intended to be misleading or distracting:"
Merriam Webster for fraud says: b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
Misleading, fraud, deceiving, misrepresenting are synonyms.
Or did you mean the nature of man is irreverent to a discussion of the nature of man?
Quote
Greek philosophy regarding perfect beauty is irrelevant to medical prefrontal lesions.
Is that so? Check out this short piece on terminal lucidity in Psychology Today. Mental processes continue in spite of a physically incapable brain. How's that work?
there are peer reviewed scientific studies of near death experiences and terminal lucidity you have to deal with.
Not really, nothing has been proven. Nobody doubts the phenomena of NDE's and out of body experiences happen, but the evidence supports that these are a brain induced experience, a form of lucid dreams or visions. Both NDE's and OBE's have been induced in the lab using both hallucinogenics and electrical brain stimulation.
For example; ''What happens when you die? As she lay blindfolded in a seat in a dimly lit room, Anna* came close to finding out.
But Anna wasn't dying, or even close to death, when she entered what she described as an alternate realm. Instead, she was among 13 volunteers who had agreed to take the powerful hallucinogenic dimethyltryptamine (DMT) for a study conducted by the psychedelic research group at Imperial College London, U.K.
The researchers, who watched Anna surf her consciousness in the low light of the research room at one of the world's most prestigious research institutions, pumped the volunteers with the psychedelic to learn how close DMT could bring a person to the sensation of skirting death.
DMT's trip is said to mimic the feeling of almost dying so accurately that those who take it describe hallucinations that mirror near-death experiences—psychological events reported by people who have come close to or believe they have come close to dying.''
Originally Posted by nighthawk
No, not that th Greeks had all the answers, but since the ancient Greeks formed the basis of Western thought you have to do battle with them first.
There are five Transcendental Desires that were recognized around 400 BC by Plato and Aristotle. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other philosophers have spoken of these same desires through the centuries.
What are these transcendental desires? They are our built-in desires for:
Perfect and unconditional Truth Perfect and unconditional Love Perfect and unconditional Justice (Goodness) Perfect and unconditional Beauty Perfect and unconditional Being (Home)
How can we have transcendent desires without some sort of transcendent nature?
There is a problem with reason alone. The Greeks were great at logic and reason, but did not have the tools with which to test their own premises. Pure reason without verifiable evidence and testing has led to all sorts of false conclusions.
Within the scientific community, "reason alone" is dead. It died with Descartes. The only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation and experiment. It's not enough to have a "great idea." One has to provide testable and explanatory hypotheses that are both verifiable and falsifiable to have any claim to objective knowledge.
False Premises; ''A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc.''
ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith 1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return)
The irrational minds of many Christians is starkly evident when they put faith/belief in their futile prayers for a personally desired outcome
they pray to change the path of tornadoes or stop the eruption of volcanoes, or for their crops not to fail,
they pray for their stockmarket share price to go up, or to win lotteries , court cases , or elections, etc
Many millions prayed to no avail that there family members would come home safe and well from WW1 and WW2 simply because they didn't trust the fate that their God already had instore for them. [ie]...a bullet, grenade, landmine of shell shrapnel fragment ,with their family members name on it.
Not surprisingly , these are the same types that believe in ancient stories of virgin births, talking snakes and donkeys, and 3 day dead corpses coming back to life.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
..., there are "Philosophical Christians" who don't believe in any of the supernatural claims of the Bible, but see it entirely as allegory
.
One is deemed a heretic by some if they don't believe the earth is 6000 yrs old and that dinosaurs were loaded onto a mythical Noahs Ark or that a ghost impregnated a woman.
What can happen when a skeptic reads or refers to a bible verse..... that he interprets incorrectly, whether taken out of context or simply misunderstood?
The skeptics reads.... does not comprehend ...... but he does come to a conclusion or belief about what he has read. He has indeed interpreted and concluded.
But what if he is wrong..... his conclusion is therefore based on a misunderstanding..... the skeptic can reach a conclusion that is not true..... wrong.
So, what he believes to be a true, is,not. He has in effect believed an untruth....
But...... “off he goes” ..... not comprehending that he has believed an untruth.....
Not really, nothing has been proven. Nobody doubts the phenomena of NDE's and out of body experiences happen, but the evidence supports that these are a brain induced experience, a form of lucid dreams or visions. Both NDE's and OBE's have been induced in the lab using both hallucinogenics and electrical brain stimulation.
That's what I thought too. But then there have been clinical peer reviewed studies since. There are documented events which cannot be explained. Leaves open the possibility of a transcendent part of our being as long as no physical explanation is available.
Proves nothing, leaves open the possibility of alternate explanations.
Here's one I particularly like, dunno why.
Shoe on the Ledge
Melvin Morse and Kim Clark reported a woman who had knowledge of a shoe on a window ledge outside the hospital. The shoe was nowhere near the place she had been resuscitated, but was next to a third-floor office. Though the shoe could have been seen from a window after the woman’s resuscitation, she had described it with such detail that it must have been viewed up close. She noted that the shoe had a worn little toe, and the shoelace was tucked beneath the heel.
The psychologist who interviewed the woman (Kim Clark) had to crawl along the ledge outside to verify the claim. The shoe was indeed there precisely as the patient had described it.
Clark concluded that:
“The only way she [the patient] could have had such a perspective was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe. I retrieved the shoe and brought it back to Maria; it was very concrete evidence for me.”
And yes, philosophy must be done carefully. Poorly stated a priori assumptions cause almost as many problems as failure to have the same definition of terms. But let's not dismiss metaphysics out of hand because it's lacking of physical proof.
Psalm 8 1 O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth, Who have set Your glory above the heavens! 2 Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, 4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? 5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, 7 All sheep and oxen-- Even the beasts of the field, 8 The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas. 9 O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth!
Psalm 104 1 Bless the Lord, O my soul! O Lord my God, You are very great: You are clothed with honor and majesty, 2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain. 3 He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters, Who makes the clouds His chariot, Who walks on the wings of the wind, 4 Who makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire. 5 You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever, 6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains. 7 At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away. 8 They went up over the mountains; They went down into the valleys, To the place which You founded for them. 9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over, That they may not return to cover the earth. 10 He sends the springs into the valleys, They flow among the hills. 11 They give drink to every beast of the field; The wild donkeys quench their thirst. 12 By them the birds of the heavens have their home; They sing among the branches. 13 He waters the hills from His upper chambers; The earth is satisfied with the fruit of Your works. 14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may bring forth food from the earth, 15 And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man's heart. 16 The trees of the Lord are full of sap, The cedars of Lebanon which He planted, 17 Where the birds make their nests; The stork has her home in the fir trees. 18 The high hills are for the wild goats; The cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers. 19 He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down. 20 You make darkness, and it is night, In which all the beasts of the forest creep about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey, And seek their food from God. 22 When the sun rises, they gather together And lie down in their dens. 23 Man goes out to his work And to his labor until the evening. 24 O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions-- 25 This great and wide sea, In which are innumerable teeming things, Living things both small and great. 26 There the ships sail about; There is that Leviathan Which You have made to play there. 27 These all wait for You, That You may give them their food in due season. 28 What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good. 29 You hide Your face, they are troubled; You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth. 31 May the glory of the Lord endure forever; May the Lord rejoice in His works. 32 He looks on the earth, and it trembles; He touches the hills, and they smoke. 33 I will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. 34 May my meditation be sweet to Him; I will be glad in the Lord. 35 May sinners be consumed from the earth, And the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
Not really, nothing has been proven. Nobody doubts the phenomena of NDE's and out of body experiences happen, but the evidence supports that these are a brain induced experience, a form of lucid dreams or visions. Both NDE's and OBE's have been induced in the lab using both hallucinogenics and electrical brain stimulation.
That's what I thought too. But then there have been clinical peer reviewed studies since. There are documented events which cannot be explained. Leaves open the possibility of a transcendent part of our being as long as no physical explanation is available.
Proves nothing, leaves open the possibility of alternate explanations.
Here's one I particularly like, dunno why.
Shoe on the Ledge
Melvin Morse and Kim Clark reported a woman who had knowledge of a shoe on a window ledge outside the hospital. The shoe was nowhere near the place she had been resuscitated, but was next to a third-floor office. Though the shoe could have been seen from a window after the woman’s resuscitation, she had described it with such detail that it must have been viewed up close. She noted that the shoe had a worn little toe, and the shoelace was tucked beneath the heel.
The psychologist who interviewed the woman (Kim Clark) had to crawl along the ledge outside to verify the claim. The shoe was indeed there precisely as the patient had described it.
Clark concluded that:
“The only way she [the patient] could have had such a perspective was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe. I retrieved the shoe and brought it back to Maria; it was very concrete evidence for me.”
That story was not part of a peer reviewed study. If it was, please direct us to the journal article.
No, but it's an anecdote which came to me through a trusted source and I took a fancy to it. Googling I was surprised at the interest among the medical community in near death experiences. Anyway it's not a proof of anything, just something that remains unexplained and makes you go, "Hmm."
Best I can tell that anecdote is attributable to:
Maria’s Shoe
Kimberly Clark Sharp (1995) was a social worker in Harborview Hospital in Seattle when Maria was brought in unconscious from cardiac arrest. Sharp visited her the following day in a hospital room, at which point Maria described leaving her body and floating above the hospital. Desperate to prove that she had in fact left her body and was not crazy, she described seeing a worn dark blue tennis shoe on the ledge outside a window on the far side of the hospital. Not believing her but wanting to help, Sharp checked the ledge by pressing her face against the sealed windows and found a shoe that perfectly matched the details Maria had related.22
22 Sharp, K.C. (1995). After the Light: What I Discovered on the Other Side of Life That Can Change Your World. Morrow, NY.
"So, what he believes to be a truth, is, not. He has in effect believed an untruth...."
Apply your own logic to yourself. I like Yogi Berra's logic better: "It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Anybody that claims to know what is going to happen to you after you die is a false prophet. The Bible is full of them.
“I don't think you do. If you did, you wouldn't continue your attempts to paint us with the Marxist brush. That's the purpose of your Cherry Picking from a commentary on the Communist Manifesto.
Regardless of your dishonest tactic, let me try to answer you in the general.”
I referenced Marxism because their philosophical starting point is essentially atheistic materialism. The starting point of atheistic materialism is essential to Marxism for it allows for the development of any type of political, economic, sociological, and moral system that they would choose to promote. They cannot build Marxism from a Christian world view, but they can from an atheistic materialistic world view. From atheism they can create their own morality. My point was Marxism cannot philosophically develop from my point of view, but they can from yours. Furthermore, neither you nor a Marxist can build their philosophy from the principles embedded in the Declaration which include creation theism and Christian moral absolutes. Though this does not make you a Marxist it does point out that your philosophical starting point is closer to Marxism than it is to the Theism of our founders. I don’t see anything dishonest or disingenuous in pointing this out. The Christian world view stop Marxism cold, while materialistic atheism allows it to develop.
Quote
“I take issue with politicians who make overly sweeping statements such as "All Religions......", There are many religions, each of which must stand or fall on the merits of it's own claims as they stack up against the evidence. Unlike Marx, I don't limit the definition of religions to only those who make supernatural claims. The philosophies of Marxism and "Global Climate Change" are effectively religions, both with many claims not sufficiently in evidence"
I agree.
Quote
“Like wise, there are "Philosophical Christians" who don't believe in any of the supernatural claims of the Bible, but see it entirely as allegory which is just one example for which I don't feel the above statement adequately takes into account.” I agree.
“Like wise, I extend the same standard to the various philosophical schools. Each must stand on the merit of it's own claims as they stack up against the evidence, and it's not the proper place of government to dictate the belief system, be it religious or philosophical, of the governed.” I agree except in the case of morals. A constitution and laws are always based on morality. If there is no moral expectation regarding theft, murder, greed, bearing false witness the law will also be unclear, or inadequate, or constantly in flux, or always being challenged on moral grounds. Our founders differentiated between morals and religion—they held to moral absolutes and freedom of religion. I concur. Atheistic societies typically become tyrannical in order to keep law and order end to enforce the state morality. Theism offers the right to challenge any law that does not morally cohere with the moral foundation.
“As for your assertion that your Cherry Picked out of context quote regarding religion as the opiote of the masses being the conerstone of Marxism, considering how the work it appeared in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, wasn't published until after Marx death, it's absurd on it's face.
Of course you've probably never read the quote in context, and have no idea what Marx was really saying. The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added):
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
So, while I did not quote it in the context of Karl Marx per se, I did quote it in context from an official webpage of Marxist Liberation theology. I posted the link in my first posting. It was not out of context from that Marxist Liberation theology webpage. In the context that I selected, I did not cherry pick it out of context.
However, I will note that in “every case” where an alleged contradiction was noted between scriptures it was a definite and deliberate cherry picking with little regard for context, logic, or common sense. In fact, this approach was defended as all we need to do is make dictionary comparisons between words and note their discrepancies. It wasn’t even recognized that words can have radically different meanings in different contexts. Thank you for reinforcing the point that context is essential to any credible comparative analysis.
Quote
“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
In other words, as suffering declines, we should expect a natural decline in religion. I'm not sure that claims holding up to the test of time. Although the old religions maybe in decline, other, such as the religion of Global Climate Change as ascending.”
I understand your point and believe it’s a good interpretation of Marx. What I quoted was how typical Marxists chose to understand and apply the Marxist concept to their Liberation Theology. You issue would be with those Marxists and their understanding of Karl Marx. That webpage is quite consistent with how Marxist governments have under stood and applied it. They simply reduce it to say with the opiate of religion removed, people can achieve their highest state of paradise on earth.
Quote
“The goal of the modern skeptic is to believe as many things that are true, and as few things that are untrue as possible, and each proposition must meet it's own burden of proof.
Consequently, for the majority of modern skeptics, they are not skeptics because they are atheist, they become atheist because they are skeptics, due to theistic claims failing to meet their burden of proof.”
Burden of proof by what standard? Anyone can reject most anything by saying there is not enough proof to meet my standard of evidence. Some skeptics said we should have manuscripts from the Biblical era to be credible. This statement overlooks that manuscripts of that era could not even last to the present age without being in modern museum conditioning or in a dry desert location with minimal human handling. Others say the evidence is too old and we cannot cross examine the eye witnesses, so we cannot verify anything. Others say God should have introduced the gospel right after the fall—which would move the evidence even further from the original. So, the skeptics on this thread cannot agree on what standard of evidence is required. When I see this fragmented and contradictory approach I realize it’s not about having enough evidence, it’s about finding a way to dismiss the evidence as it relates tot he Bible. Perhaps in other areas skeptics are more objective in their reasoning.
Quote
“To me, the propositions of Marxism and Theism are separate and distinct, and one does not depend upon the other.
When you attempt to tie my position on Theism to Marxism, I see it as the moral and philosophical and tactical equivalent of the political left calling everyone who voted for Trump a Racist.
I haven't attempted to pin the sins of White Supremacist, the KKK and the Nazi's (yes, Hitler was Catholic) on you, so please stop pinning the sins of Stalin and Mao on me.”
I have not called you a Marxist. I have only pointed out that the philosophical starting point of Marxism is atheistic materialism—which allows them to proceed to Marxism. There is a clear tie from this starting point to the atrocities of Mao and Stalin. My starting point with theism and moral absolutes does not allow for any type of Marxist development.
Neither Hitler nor the White Supremacists can make any logical comparison between their philosophy and that of Jesus whether they call themselves Christians or not. Most Christians would agree with me.
It’s interesting that you want no link to the atrocities of atheistic societies but you have often tried to tie my beliefs to the “Christian perpetrated atrocities.” But there is no tie between those atrocities and the teachings of Christ—even though the perpetrators claimed the Christian faith.
"So, what he believes to be a truth, is, not. He has in effect believed an untruth...."
Apply your own logic to yourself. I like Yogi Berra's logic better: "It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Anybody that claims to know what is going to happen to you after you die is a false prophet. The Bible is full of them.
They are only a false prophet if they lie or maybe are wrong, depending on your definition.
What happens after we die is one thing no one can confirm, except for the near death experience folks, some of whom actually did die but were revived. Their reports tend to confirm life after death.
What you say is easy to say if you don't believe what the Bible says. I believe the Bible, so it's a non-issue for me.
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
Even good people do foolish things. Like you, not believing the Bible.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
No, we know how humans behave when they have unfettered power. Claiming Christianity means nothing. Walking that walk means everything. Obviously then, inquisitor's were not Christian, regardless of what they claimed.
Didn't say we deserved saving, I said He thought we were worth saving. ....
Quote the scripture that unequivocally states wicked humans are actually considered 'worth saving' by God.
The trivial worth God places on man does not necessarily amount to something worth saving. ie; don't confuse your God rated WORTH with WORTH SAVING by God.
Everyone knows a nickel is worth more than a dime , but to some neither are worth one bending down to retrieve from the sidewalk.
Collins/Webster/Oxford dictionaries:
MERIT = worth, value, warrant,deserve, entitled,credited, earned, {Origin} - Middle English (originally in the sense ‘deserved reward or punishment’): via Old French from Latin meritum ‘due reward’, from mereri ‘earn, deserve’.
WORTH = merit, value, deserve [to be valued or rated], deserving or worthy of; meriting: {origin} - Old English weorþ "value, worthiness, merit,"
Hmmmm,,..So How can one be merited or credited with 'worth saving' when , saving by God is only through his [un-merited] grace?
If you were valued or merited enough to be considered worth saving , then Gods grace would not be required.
Marx's position on religion is totally irrelevant to the question of the existence of god(s)
How any group forms their political philosophy based upon their belief a specific god or set of gods exists is not informative to the under lying question, does a(ny) god(s) exist?.
If you wish to be respectful of Atheist, it's important you at least attempt to understand what it actually means to be an "atheist" and not saddle us with baggage outside of that narrow definition.
Atheism is a single position on a single proposition. Atheism isn't a declaration of absolutes, it's "I don't accept your god claims". or alternatively "your god claims have not met their burden of proof". It is not inclusive of a world view or a dogma, or any other beliefs.
In contrast, the behavior of a gods followers and representatives on earth can be informative about a specified god's potential existence.
What kind of a week pathetic all knowing, all loving, all powerful creator of the universe most influential organization on Earth is filled with homosexual pedophiles? Perhaps this is most consistent with a god who does not exist.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
No, we know how humans behave when they have unfettered power. Claiming Christianity means nothing. Walking that walk means everything. Obviously then, inquisitor's were not Christian, regardless of what they claimed.
Who are you to say they were not Christian?
Did they believe they were serving God?
Were their actions sanctioned by the religious leaders, including the Popes of their time?
There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction
Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.
Even good people do foolish things. Like you, not believing the Bible.
There is nothing foolish about forming my beliefs based upon the best available evidence.
Claiming Faith to believe a happy story with no good evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary, could be considered both gullible and foolish.
she was fond of sayin we don't know if christianity works or not.
it's never really been tried. so, we're at a loss at what a christian world would look like.
One common denominator...They are all transgressors - that just happen to come in all shapes, sizes and colors.
natural man by his failed design/wicked nature cannot avoid being the enemy of GOD...man is considered stained with sin and ungodworthy for good reason.
but its said Jesus can get your garments cleaner, whiter, brighter, and smelling fresher than any detergent on the market.
. Claiming Christianity means nothing. Walking that walk means everything. ..
what % of those who identify as Christians actually have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them whereby they actually genuinely live their life directed by such?
Pretenders far outweigh the real deal Christians?
Knowing humans, they typically transgress much more than they manage to repent?
Quote the scripture that unequivocally states wicked humans are actually considered 'worth saving' by God.
Luke 15:11-32 leaps to mind.
So if God says people are not worth saving, and He goes ahead and saves them anyway, then God is irrational. Which is error by definition. More like God says people are not worth saving by their own merit but are worth being saved through His mercy. We are his children.
Not really, nothing has been proven. Nobody doubts the phenomena of NDE's and out of body experiences happen, but the evidence supports that these are a brain induced experience, a form of lucid dreams or visions. Both NDE's and OBE's have been induced in the lab using both hallucinogenics and electrical brain stimulation.
That's what I thought too. But then there have been clinical peer reviewed studies since. There are documented events which cannot be explained. Leaves open the possibility of a transcendent part of our being as long as no physical explanation is available.
Proves nothing, leaves open the possibility of alternate explanations.
Here's one I particularly like, dunno why.
Shoe on the Ledge
Melvin Morse and Kim Clark reported a woman who had knowledge of a shoe on a window ledge outside the hospital. The shoe was nowhere near the place she had been resuscitated, but was next to a third-floor office. Though the shoe could have been seen from a window after the woman’s resuscitation, she had described it with such detail that it must have been viewed up close. She noted that the shoe had a worn little toe, and the shoelace was tucked beneath the heel.
The psychologist who interviewed the woman (Kim Clark) had to crawl along the ledge outside to verify the claim. The shoe was indeed there precisely as the patient had described it.
Clark concluded that:
“The only way she [the patient] could have had such a perspective was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe. I retrieved the shoe and brought it back to Maria; it was very concrete evidence for me.”
Things are never quite as simple as some folks would have it. The world is far too complex to assume anything;
Quote; ''Although she had been able, with difficulty, to see the shoe from inside, Clark believed her view of it had differed from Maria's. That is because for Maria to have noticed that the side of the shoe next to the small toe was worn and that a lace was tucked under the heel, she would need to have viewed it from the opposite direction; i.e., looking toward the building rather than out of it. Clark is adamant that these details of the shoe could not have been visible from inside the hospital. She then proceeded to retrieve the shoe, convinced that it offered irrefutable proof that Maria's spirit had indeed left her body and floated outside of the hospital during her CPA.
Do the facts require a spiritual interpretation?
On the surface, certain aspects of Maria's story seem to defy naturalistic explanation. The leading NDE researchers, Ring and Lawrence, quoted above, accept Clark's spiritualistic interpretation wholeheartedly, although they do admit that not everyone would agree. There are, of course, other plausible explanations for the key points that distinguish this case. Closer examination reveals that the story is much less impressive than it seems at first blush.
Clark was impressed by the fact that Maria recalled seeing that the monitoring apparatus was streaming out chart paper while she was supposedly out of her body. But, as she herself admits, Maria could have been familiar with the hospital equipment and procedures. So, like other parts of typical NDEs, it is quite possible that this was merely a visual memory incorporated into the hallucinatory world that is often formed by a sensory-deprived and oxygen-starved brain. We know that the brain frequently tries to construct a substitute image of external reality from memory when traumatic changes temporarily deprive it of its normal sensory inputs (Blackmore 1993; Beyerstein, in press). Because this memory-derived imagery is the most complete and stable construct the brain can muster under the circumstances, it is accepted as reality for the moment.''
Quote the scripture that unequivocally states wicked humans are actually considered 'worth saving' by God.
Luke 15:11-32 leaps to mind.
So if God says people are not worth saving, and He goes ahead and saves them anyway, then God is irrational. Which is error by definition. More like God says people are not worth saving by their own merit but are worth being saved through His mercy. We are his children.
Well, actually, it goes much further than that.... if we consider what it says in the bible about God deliberately creating some for Glory and others for destruction:
''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.'' - Romans 9:21-23
"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11
But, as she herself admits, Maria could have been familiar with the hospital equipment and procedures.
And coincidentally familiar with a tennis shoe on a third floor ledge on the opposite side of the building. Doesn't add up. And if it's a physical process why don't all similarly situated patients have them? I believe that was a conclusion of a study of cardio patients whene only18% had an nde experience (going from memory.
But, as she herself admits, Maria could have been familiar with the hospital equipment and procedures.
And coincidentally familiar with a tennis shoe on a third floor ledge on the opposite side of the building. Doesn't add up. And if it's a physical process why don't all similarly situated patients have them? I believe that was a conclusion of a study of cardio patients whene only18% had an nde experience (going from memory.
Something we don't understand is going on here.
A lot of possible things may happen when it comes to brain function. For one, the senses acquire far more information than we are conscious of. A process of filtering prior to readiness potential and consciousness selects the focus of attention, Libet, et al.
Just because we are not immediately aware of something in a given instance in time doesn't mean the information is not there, or that it may not be recalled at a later time. A subconscious impression of something that results in a eureka moment...."oh, that's what it was."
Just because we are not immediately aware of something in a given instance in time doesn't mean the information is not there,
On the other hand it doesn't mean that the information necessarily IS there. In this case it's pretty hard to envision how Maria would know of that shoe in detail. And there are other reports with similar improbability. So we don't know and cannot foreclose the possibility of some transcendent event, no matter how much we may wish to.
Just because we are not immediately aware of something in a given instance in time doesn't mean the information is not there,
On the other hand it doesn't mean that the information necessarily IS there. In this case it's pretty hard to envision how Maria would know of that shoe in detail. And there are other reports with similar improbability. So we don't know and cannot foreclose the possibility of some transcendent event, no matter how much we may wish to.
We don't have access to whatever actually transpired, who happened to be precisely where in what position in any moment in time, what their peripheral vision picked up, etc....what is telling is the willingness to consider extraordinary explanations over natural possibilities, perhaps because the mundane is not as appealing as the fantastic, a ghost in the machine, the promise of something more, god to look after us, an afterlife.
''The unconscious mind is still viewed by many psychological scientists as the shadow of a “real” conscious mind, though there now exists substantial evidence that the unconscious is not identifiably less flexible, complex, controlling, deliberative, or action-oriented than is its counterpart. This “conscious-centric” bias is due in part to the operational definition within cognitive psychology that equates unconscious with subliminal. We review the evidence challenging this restricted view of the unconscious emerging from contemporary social cognition research, which has traditionally defined the unconscious in terms of its unintentional nature; this research has demonstrated the existence of several independent unconscious behavioral guidance systems: perceptual, evaluative, and motivational. From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.''
So if God says people are not worth saving, and He goes ahead and saves them anyway, then God is irrational. Which is error by definition. ...
or you simply don't understand the nature of Grace.
"Grace may be defined as the unmerited or undeserving favor of God to those who are under condemnation."
In others words, despite God viewing the wicked as being worthy of destruction ,he can still choose to exercise his option and offer you something you have not earnt [offer His benevolence to the unworthy-undeserving]
Grace is God offering the greatest treasure of Life to those rightfully deserving of the punishment of death.
Now if you truly believe you are one of his children and He loves you, why would He not do that?..
What about predestination? God is said to know the end from the beginning, Omniscience. In which case everything you do was known 'before the foundation of the World.
But, as she herself admits, Maria could have been familiar with the hospital equipment and procedures.
And coincidentally familiar with a tennis shoe on a third floor ledge on the opposite side of the building. Doesn't add up. And if it's a physical process why don't all similarly situated patients have them? I believe that was a conclusion of a study of cardio patients whene only18% had an nde experience (going from memory.
Something we don't understand is going on here.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I had to go the hospital for colitis. I will need to "bowel" out of this for now..
that is, the aliens have extracted the info they were lookin' for.
now, the jungle, zoo, failed experiment is running on it's own, fueled by the urth.
some say only the strong survive, others say the christians are in full control of events.
others who walk amongst us claim that a ton of folks don't have a soul whatsoever. no soul?
that would mean, according to some, we were dumped down here as assault troops to civilize things?
if our job is to save things, how are we doing so far? about half way in, and the results are somewhat uncertain?
Gus,,,, is it feasible biblical Adam actually arrived via a time displacement wormhole like the T-800...?...
T800s "A.I." shades that of biblical Adams intelligence by far .. Adam would be downright jelous that he got a fig leaf and unsaddled unicorn while T800 gets a set of fitted leathers and Harley..
The odds are that if we are living in a created World - however unlikely - it's more probable to be one of countless Worlds being generated by a Super Civilization and Quantum computing than anything Supernatural.
recall the creationist -evangelist [Ray Comfort] who proclaimed that the everyday supermarket banana is ' proof' that God perfectly designs everything.
Christians claim that the holy Spirit makes them way smarter, even supernatural wisdom.
so how is it some self contradictory bumbling fool CF christians are about as bright as the evangelist that didn't know common commercial shelf bananas are result of many years of scientific gene shuffling hybridization efforts.?
Such are the self convinced delusional clown types that like to tell atheists, agnostics and even other christians,
about the superiority of what they 'know' .. because of their relationship with God.
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
No, we know how humans behave when they have unfettered power. Claiming Christianity means nothing. Walking that walk means everything. Obviously then, inquisitor's were not Christian, regardless of what they claimed.
Who are you to say they were not Christian?
Did they believe they were serving God?
Were their actions sanctioned by the religious leaders, including the Popes of their time?
The odds are that if we are living in a created World - however unlikely - it's more probable to be one of countless Worlds being generated by a Super Civilization and Quantum computing than anything Supernatural.
Either that, or, perhaps they don't even know they are creating these worlds. Think of the millions of tiny blackhole created every second by the LHC. Who know's what kinds of experiments could be run by a highly advanced civilization, and what those results might be. Not much point in praying to the grad student behind the switch
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
No, we know how humans behave when they have unfettered power. Claiming Christianity means nothing. Walking that walk means everything. Obviously then, inquisitor's were not Christian, regardless of what they claimed.
Who are you to say they were not Christian?
Did they believe they were serving God?
Were their actions sanctioned by the religious leaders, including the Popes of their time?
I didn't make the statement you quoted.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Quote
They did a whole lot more than just slander during the Inquisition. We know how Christians behave when they have unfettered power, they commit atrocities on the same scale as Stalin and Mao, but don't worry, Thunderstick will be along soon with his "No True Scottsman" Fallacy to tell how the leaders of the Inquisition didn't really believe they were Christians.....
As noted before, Christianity is defined by Christ and His teachings. He never performed such acts and therefore anyone doing those things were departing from the example of Christ and not following it.
I quoted what I was referring to above, to give context to my claim about your position. It was not my intent to misquote you. So are you saying the leaders of the Inquisition, those who carried out all those brutal tortures, murders, and ran their intimidation racket across all of Christendom, were Christian? Did they believe they were Christian and carrying out The Will of God?
Did these events not constitute atrocities carried out in the name of God?
As for Sweet Jesus, meek and mild, there wasn't much, if anything of hell in the Old Testament. The Jews believed death was akin to sleeping with your ancestors. Eternal Damnation and burning in fire forever was really a consequence of the New Testament.
However most of the others you did not respond, but you claim to have proven they do not exist. You have not done that.
You have yet to even respond to my first example about the contradictions between God in the Old and God in the New Testament.
Below quoted from evidence demands a reason by Josh McDowell
Isn’t the Old Testament God a God of Hate and the New Testament God a God of Love?
Another of the frequent accusations against the Bible is that it contains two different conceptions of God.
The Old Testament allegedly presents only a God of wrath, while the New Testament allegedly depicts only a God of love.
The Old Testament contains stories of God’s commanding the destruction ofSodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, and many other stories of God’s judgment and wrath. The accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike deity in contradistinction to the advanced teachings of Jesus to love one another and to turn the other cheek, as contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
These ideas about God seem to be in direct conflict, but a moment’s reflection will show otherwise.
Jesus Himself declared that the Old Testament may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37). He also observed that God in the Old Testament had continually desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).
This attitude can be seen with statements such as, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked… and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).
God would not have destroyed certain nations except that He is a God of justice and their evil could not go unchecked and condoned.
He did intend and desire to punish them as a part of His plan, in consistency with His holy nature and jealousy for His wayfaring people. What He desires in consistency with His pure character, He does in justice, in their case, providing they have not repented and come into harmony with His nature (Jeremiah 18).
In the case of the Amorites, God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they did not (Genesis 15:16). Noah preached 120 years to his generation before the great flood (Genesis 6:3). The proper Old Testament picture is one of a very patient God who gives these people untold opportunities to repent and come into harmony with Him, and only when they continually refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds. Contrary to some popular belief, the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the Bible were made by the Lord Jesus Himself.
In Matthew 23, for example, He lashed out at the religious leaders of His day, calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them that their destiny was eternal banishment from God’s presence.
In Matthew 10:34 (KJV), Jesus says that the purpose of His mission is not to unite but to divide. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He goes on to say that His word will cause a father to be against his son, a mother against her daughter, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:35).
We find judgment as well as love scattered very pervasively throughout the New Testament, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the Old Testament.
God is consistent and unchanging, but different situations call for different emphases. Therefore, when the two testaments are read the way they were intended, they reveal the same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished.
Thank you for responding and bringing your thoughts to the conversation. I still can not agree. A God of justice would not have killed innocent people including kids. Jesus never condoned anything that evil.
Moses: DEUTERONOMY 2:34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors. DEUTERONOMY 3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city – men, women and children.
There sits the heart of the matter. Like a festering boil.
The assumption teachings by the modern Church that these were innocent people is nothing more than that, an assumption. Further study of their lineage shows who they actually were and innocent is not a word that accurately describes them. Jag gave a very good hint as to who they are while Mathew 13:24-30 describes them very well.
Your response to the modern church teachings is right on the money. Had they not lied or mislead people as to what was transpiring, what the true goal of Lucifer is, and who's who and from what lineage, then your response would not be accurate. Leave a chapter or a book out of the teaching of Mathematics, or Science, Biology, or any other important subject and the whole teaching goes to Hell in a hand basket right along with the teachers. It is the same with the History and the Bible.
Good post Jag.
Belated thanks , K.
Who asks or expects a blind man to tell the seeing how to find their way to some place far away? Who asks the colorblind to find out what fields of spring flowers look like?
Some do, however. It's amazing that those who cant see what we see, such as AS, keep pointing us to others to follow in their path, when they are as blind as he.
Who wants to follow in the path of the walking dead?
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/fcTFPrS.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/D8F4pB9.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/g0cVdvqy/20190522-205443.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/6156468/il_570xN.263985400.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://jumonville.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/cross-wooden.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://picsbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Cross-Wallpaper-HD-3.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/books/2016/04/11/bible2-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bqeo_i_u9APj8RuoebjoAHt0k9u7HhRJvuo-ZLenGRumA.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k7RYJbWgXbk/TWTwx2zagII/AAAAAAAAAKE/gBZNm_1L3p8/s400/Red%2BHerring.gif)