Lit

That's a nice job of thinking God thinks as we do. I disagree. With greater persepective comes better thinking.

The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.

Jesus came when he did because the Earth has a day of 24 hours [actually, 23h 56m and change, though that is variable]; the only planet in our system with that length of day.

IOW, why did there need to be a specific schedule of his coming, or his return? Answer: no specific reason. Some things happen when they happen just because that is when they happen. To try to assign some numeric/time significance to it is placing too much significance on the event when it really does not matter in scheme of the performance of Christ's purpose. He could have come at any time, but it was not at the fullness of time; it was called the meridian of time, but that may not be particularly accurate, either. The accomplishment of his mission is what is important, not when it occurred.

It sounds nice, but what is the difference between being good and being alive?

A living charity worker is good and alive.

An ancient king who made his kingdom prosper is good but not alive.

A murderer at large is alive but not good.

A criminal that has gone through the death penalty action and thus died is neither alive nor good.

Is God material or immaterial?

A question for Atheists and Theists.  

Is the world material or immaterial? 

Is there anything apart from God that is immaterial?

The commandments of Jesus are too difficult to keep, 

But there is a reward of a ticket to heaven and everlasting life and a one to one with god, if you can.

I would say that while the Bible clearly does say in places that faith gets you into heaven and not actions, it just as clearly enforces a stick/carrot morality system in other places.

Synchronicities, supplemented by conscious planning for coincidence, especially with the number 7. Yes, the elite does this, and so does the Universe. Google Kamala Harris wrestler and you will see. Decide for yourself, if plan(magical ritual) or Universal synchronicity. I am not sure.

There actually was a Jewish state in 1897, just not yet physically manifest. The physically unseen is just, if not more important than focusing only on what's physically seen.

lol, so there was a country entirely in people's imaginations, and you thing that is an "actual state"? if i think about making a country is it also a an actual state?

Yes, you're right, but we're looking at two sets of 50 here. One for the establishment of the nation and one for the management. Part of the Jubilee year is for this purpose concerning the land of Israel.

Israel was established in 1948. None of the dates you have provided are for the establishment of Israel. 

There's no specific prophecy concerning Donald Trump or his actions that I know of. Him and his actions just happen to fall in line with with certain things.

you specifically said there was a prophecy, now you are saying there is no prophecy...

I don't think the Embassy marked anything important other than symbolizing the United States full, instead of half-full, support for Israel by recognition of Jerusalem.

Israel has had the US' full support for decades. The only question at issue in the embassy decision is where the capitol of Israel and the capitol of the Palestinian state should be. Since the Palestinians also claim Jerusalem, the US unilaterally claiming it is the capitol of Israel is a stupid decision. 

It happened to fall on Israel's 70th birthday.

Humans can read a calendar. I'm sure the PR aspect was considered when they decided when to announce this. 

In 1897, a visionary leader named Theodor Herzl assembled the first Zionist Congress and founded the Jewish state. 

untrue. There was no jewish state in 1897. He didn't found a jewish state.  He founded a group that wanted a jewish state. 

Now, the balfour declaration was the start of the forming of the Jewish State entering world affairs.

there had been lots of people calling for a jewish state before the balfour declaration. Pretending like it was a new idea is inaccurate. 

Trump's opinion matters if he is moving prophecy along. If he's not, you're right.

2 things.

1) what prophesy?

2) trump's actions didn't change anything. he moved an embassy. That is it. The US government could move it back next month. It had no real world impact. 

lol you are cherry picking random events from history and ascribing a deeper meaning to them. 

1917 was the Balfour declaration which was the calling for the establishment of a nation for the Jewish people.

this call had been made for decades by that point. You are cherry picking one specific call for this because it fits in the narrative you want. 

1967 was the six day war in which Israel defeated her enemies and captured land.

Israel fought multiple wars. Why are you focusing on this one instead of the others?

December 2017 was when Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

Trump's opinion on the matter means very, very little. So this isn't really an important event. 

If God asked you to sacrifice what you loved most (exactly like what happened to Abraham), would you kill your son, or at least whole heartedly have the intentions of doing so? 

The type of "slavery" that is being talked about there is "Slavery to sin".... its hilarious how you cry out "CONTEXT CONTEXT" Yet most of the things you cite you don't even know the context of, let's look at it shall we?

John 8:31-36 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendents and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." He's saying that every living person is a slave to sin, but by believing in him, you will be set free. That's what Jesus is talking about here, and its funny how people misinterpret that. 

But this one tells people to never submit to the yoke of slavery:

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." - Galatians 5:1

Here is the list.

1. If you were born in India, you would've been a Hindu!

2. Hitler was a Christian!

3. Bible promotes rape, slavery, and killing!

4. Sky Daddy!

5. God is evil!

6. Religious people are less intelligent!

7. Religion is a delusion!

8. It's writing in black and white!

9. Jesus was a myth!

10. Christians have killed people!

atheists can believe in spirits and ghosts and metaphysical realms...

"The mind" is how we refer to internal electro-chemical physiological processes...... Particularly, processes relating to consciousness and conscious thought.

In other words, brain function.....Or as some people refer to it, "sloshy slinky stuff".

To read more into it, is to simply making use of said sloshy slinky processes.

How do you know the brain isn't simply processing the information received from the sense organs?

So what's the mind then?

Yes, you're right. I tripped up. Put prove and disprove in place of affirm and disaffirm in my post, because it being a responsive act would necessitate these two actions.

An independent claim would be an invention by man and showing it to those who don't know it exists. This is independent and separate from man. A person doesn't independently say God exists because it is based off a stirring in the conscience. Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject. This is responsive.

What do you mean by "stirring in the conscience"?

For example, saying the apparent order of the universe credits the existence of God is based off a stirring in the human conscience because we perceive order.

This presents a teleological issue--i.e. the perceived ends an entity serves necessarily is a consequence of creation for that specific end. For example, evolutionary psychology suffers immensely from this issue when making claims like gender roles necessarily manifest from a reproductive economy.

Sense experience isn't necessarily objective reality.

Experience isn't always observation of facts and events.

Schizophrenic people suffer from hallucinations all the time, those aren't objective, nor particularly reasonable (In more ways than one). It hasn't been demonstrated that anyone's spirituality is founded on reason.

When it comes to the existence of God, man doesn't have a place to affirm or disaffirm. The reason is that saying God exists or does not exist isn't an independent claim, but a responsive one.

Man does have a place to affirm or negate. And independent claims, which I presume you mean to mirror "objective" claims are irrational. So is the affirmation of nonexistence.

Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement. 

The burden of proof rests with whoever affirms. So, if one were to affirm the existence of God (i.e. "God does exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation. If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.

The notion that Atheists merely bear no burden of proof because of the prevailing notion "we don't have to prove a negative" is nonsense.

Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.

But that doesn't mean that men's spirituality is founded on reason.

Let's notice what it is not saying. 

No, lets not.

Reading involves doing a lot of things when trying to understand what's being said, and considering things that aren't said is one of the things that helps a person to comprehend better what texts actually do say.

 Possibly but inserting words into the text is not one of them.

Lets get get this right, nowhere does JOHN THE BAPTIST  baptise anyone IN or FOR the name of  anyone. 

If you were referring to John the Baptist then it doesn't make sense to bring up a place where John isn't mentioned. My response was to the Acts reference.

 Opinion. It makes perfect sense because the crux is that John and those other verses All speak of "repentance and or forgiveness of sins".  John T B  doesn't even mention "in the name of anyone "  but they all mention washing away  "for the forgiveness of sins".

You are wasting your own time and mine by attempting to go off on your own tangent by injecting your own ideas and theories of what "could be" or what something "could"  mean.  It is what  ONLY the scriptures themselves CLEARLY say that interests me.

 Wasting time? This is an online forum board, we can come and go when we please. You cannot here waste my time and neither can I yours. 

You are mine and I have explained why above. But , if you don't think you are wasting your own time  then you bang away typing  you word salad on that key board..

If we don't take into account though the nuances of human expression then anything we read won't be clear, nor give us the chance to receive clarity.

The only thing we can take into account is what is written. Injecting ones own unprovable  beliefs into these "god breathed" scriptures only serves to distort  even further this contradictory ambiguous mess and  the way they have come down to us in. But you do appear to be admitting that they are not clear. Kudos for that.

 Does Jesus ever once tell his Jewish disciples that he will, and is, voluntary going to be put to death  for their sins, . ? 

I can assume right away you're not Christian and you're asking someone who is interested as well in learning these things.

Are you? It comes across to me that you are only come here to defend these ancient and unreliable scriptures full of ambiguous half stories.

And I am not a practicing christian if that is what your asking.  It was all arranged  by the church against my so called  "free will". As was my fathers and my fathers fathers father and at time when the church still had a pretty firm grip on the conscience of men.

I have compared and found that we're in agreement. The text says of repentance and not for repentance.

Well not quite true is it. First of all we are talking the washing away of sins and  the path to being "saved"

You wrote:

Let's notice what it is not saying. It is not saying John was preaching a baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, but a baptism of repentance.

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

 So you want to play semantics and argue  "for"  as apposed to "of", where it mentions repentance. Ok I will accept that for what it is worth.

But the point being made at post #29 is  to do with innocence and being saved (twice) by the "washing away of ones sins" .   Three of those verse don't even mention the  name of anyone.  Two don't even mention the word repentance . Three mention forgiveness .   And the one that does speak of the Christ was written by Christians well after the JEW Christ was crucified dead and buried. So take your pick, they are all concerned with washing and cleansing ones sins.

 So lets not drift away from what we do know  into the realms of what the scriptures do not even mention.

See below

“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

Mark 1:4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. [A]

Lit, wrote:  Let's notice what it is not saying. It is not saying John was preaching a baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, [B] but a baptism of repentance.

Well I am sorry but it clearly does say exactly that  "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". So first  compare A & B ^^^^.  I  do hope you are not going to continue denying  what the scriptures actually DO say.? Just as I predicted on this very  thread at post #3

So now then compare if you will>>

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

Let's notice what it is not saying. 

No, lets not.  I am only interested in what the scriptures actaully DO say.  Not what you want them to or even attempt to speculate what they are saying.

I don't care about speculation, imagination, conjecture, your theories. these scriptures are supposed to be the " breathed words of god himself". I am sure they wasn't written for anyone to speculate about or theorise what he- god  meant or jump to any conclusions or interpreted to what one may only believe is being conveyed.  Why would god even leave room for error? 

and to make this clear  Paul in  says the same  in ( Acts 22:16) 

as does Peter  (Acts 2:38)

Being baptized into a name is different than being baptized for a name.   The latter could symbolize.....................

 

Lets get get this right, nowhere does JOHN THE BAPTIST  baptise anyone IN or FOR the name of  anyone.  Nowhere. Christians may well have done so  when they come on the scene and said Jesus was god,  but  I am  referring to,  and talking about repentance and the forgiven sins as clearly described in the scriptures and being saved, as per OP.  

You are wasting your own time and mine by attempting to go off on your own tangent by injecting your own ideas and theories of what "could be" or what something "could"  mean.  It is what  ONLY the scriptures themselves CLEARLY say that interests me. 

My concerns are that we are first washed of our sins by John via a ritual of baptism. And then along comes Jesus who appears to decide we are not clean enough and takes it upon himself that  he must  PAY with his LIFE! for my sins that had already been washed away by Johns baptismal ritual. 

Besides, the idea  that I would ask or want  anyone to suffer for my crimes or sins is abhorrent and it appalls me.  Neither my brother nor Jesus is my keeper. And I will  suffer and bare my own cross,  as it is I,  that  am responsible for my own actions.  

Religious matters can't be expected to be understood by words alone but by understanding who we are as humans.

Well I for one wouldn't and don't know anyone that would accept or expect someone going to the gallows and die for me. Especially without my consent. 

We [religious people]  don't speak only one tone but we have a multitude of ways to get across to each other what we're saying

Yes I bet you do.  I imagine you pray for an all size fits answer to every question posed to you now that old excuse of "the lord works in mysterious ways" had had its day.

and religion exemplifies our understanding of non-literal language.

 Well the bible is completely literal and if it is "gods word" and the "word is god" I can only say he is the most backward illiterate monster in the whole of the scriptures.

I am sorry but your imaginative word salad does not explain  why we are cleansed by Johns hands after repenting  and then Christians tell us years later that  Jesus died for the sins of everyone in the whole world that we were  already cleansed of. 

 Does Jesus ever once tell his Jewish disciples that he will, and is, voluntary going to be put to death  for their sins, . ? 

Does Christianity present salvation as a whole, in the afterlife, or are Christians saved while being saved? 

 Christians can never make their minds up when it comes what they call to being "saved". 

For instance, when the subject of  "innocent" children being killed  for no reason by god or anyone else, Christians stampede to tell us that the children "weren't innocent" as  we are all sinful because our ancestor/s had listened to a snake instead of  god. 

Ok let's accept that on the face of it, for now.

But then along comes  John the Baptist, seemingly without  any authority, teaching people to pray going around baptising others in a ritual that scriptures says washes away our sins as long as we repent and believe  Example:

Mark 1:4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

and to make this clear  Paul in  says the same  in ( Acts 22:16) 

as does Peter  (Acts 2:38)

and Lukes gospel  (Luke 3:3)

So here we  now are, according to the above,  cleansed of our sins , all's forgiven  all back in the state of innocents. It must have felt like they had been born all over again to those sinners. Nice and clean  just out the wrapper, lovely, brilliant and absolute smashing we are all going to heaven or paradise, take your pick.

But then,   along comes Jesus/ God and son of himself.   He speaks a few bias and contradictory parables, tell us to give all our  hard earned worldly goods to the poor while the bible tells us the end is nigh (which one has to wonder how giving away one's worldly goods benefits the poor if the end is just around the corner) and love him/god and one another and THEN!   Christians  tell us that - after being beaten to within  to inches of his life , he suffered the most HORRIFIC execution ever dreamed up by man  AND - HE  - DIED!? 

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son [ that would be giving himself as ransom for himself], that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” 

WHY?  Well you may well ask , Lit.  By all accounts it was to "save us from our sins" that we didn't  even have !  That is  if we are to believe Mark 1:4  & Peter  (Acts 2:38) &   (Luke 3:3) & John 3:16 &  ( Acts 22:16) 

What is anyone to make of this garbled nonsense?

That passage in 1st Corinthians 5, the fifth verse has the word may instead of will except in a few translations. May never necessitates will

A problem with saying "will" is it would require knowing the person was a genuine believer, or having a revelation that they will "become" a believer.

If a saved person continues in wilful sin, they will still be saved, but will need to undergo a severe process before being received into eternal joy.

I think the text suggests that Paul may have had doubts about the person's stance as a believer.

I would say you're correct in your reference to 1 John.

To try and add to that, at least in my interpretation open to correction.

If a saved person continues in wilful sin, they will still be saved, but will need to undergo a severe process before being received into eternal joy.

I base this on the man found in adultery in 1 Corinthians. I think Paul gave him the benefit of the doubt as far as being a believer, and suggested that he needed extreme circumstances to bring him to that place where God could deal with his heart.

He was to be removed from fellowship, and face a sort of destruction from the expert on that which is Satan. To be removed from fellowship, and turned over to Satan is very serious.

Easy believism, I believe, is a false term as far as reality is concerned. Salvation in one sense is easy, and in another quite hard. The salvation is solid, but the outcome of living in darkness presents severe hardship.