Total posts: 1,044
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That's correct. That is, I'm not talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes. But that would kill the theory that atheists are the enlightened few, completely free from cultural influence.If you were born in the Czech Republic today, you are an atheist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
And you download music.
I don't think it was that long ago when progressive meant improvement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I could never figure out what anyone would have against variety.
One of the worst accusations against God (among a multitude), is genocide. That is such a deplorable accusation, and immensely ignorant. The variety of humans in terms of culture is quite incredible when we think about it considering the planet isn't really that large. How many language accents are there in Great Britain.....wait....in England alone?
Good points!
Created:
Posted in:
A different twist to "If you were born in America, you will be a Christian", "If you were born in Iraq, you will be a Muslim", etc., that is focused on religious folk.
How about one for atheists.
"If you were born in America, you will be a pluralist". "if you were born in China, you will be totalitarian".
Created:
If they don't admit it, can they keep scamming people?
Maybe I don't understand the question, but isn't that like asking if insurance companies can keep scamming people?
Maybe they're all frauds and we'll see how many are atheists.
Maybe I don't understand the statement, but do you mean like on Judgment Day?????
Can you find any other atheists that have intentionally gone out as evangelical to run scams?
I went to church with one. A child prodigy who eventually became a born again believer as I recall. Who knows how many low-profile former atheists ministers there have been?
Can I find a high profile one that you have heard of? I don't think so. As I said, if an evangelist scam artist admits to being an atheist, they're done. It's over.
Have you ever heard of Chuck Colson? He was a former political ally of Richard Nixon who was sent to prison during the Watergate incident. Shortly before being incarcerated he became a believer. When he went to prison he became a minister, and lead a number of people to Christ. One
of them was an evangelist scam artist. So there's obviously been many of them, just not high profile. In fact, Marjoe Gortner probably wouldn't be nearly as high profile as he is due to fessing up. And his motivation probably wasn't as virtuous as the Common Sense Atheism website would like you to believe. His fessing up was a stepping stone to get into the movies.
One of the problems is that atheism is now a political tag. There have been many atheists who probably never used the word atheist to describe themselves because there's no political interest involved. And there's a fine line between atheism and agnosticism. Unless you can claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God, technically you're an agnostic.
So going back to the parents of Marjoe Gortner, would you (or could you) say they may have been atheists?
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
His family put him up to the fraud, they were 3 generations of evangelists. Just because this guy admitted to being an atheist, doesn't mean any of them are."Audiences believed Marjoe was a "miracle child" receiving sermons from God while sleeping — in reality he carefully memorised his sermons under harsh discipline.[1] His mother would suffocate him under a pillow or water faucet if he failed to perform satisfactorily (she chose these methods specifically because they left no visible marks"
Like I said, if any fraudulent evangelist admitted to being an atheist, their scam is over.
And like I also said, I'm not claiming all fraudulent evangelists are atheists. We don't know unless they confess it. Right?
Now, if his parents put him up to the fraud, and he was himself was an atheist, then it's possible his parents were atheists.....(Pause before continuing the sentence. This is going to be very tough for you to admit)....right? I'm not saying they were atheists because there's no record of a confession. But there certainly is an obvious chance they were.
What do they need collection plates for if not to take your money? Why does God need money?
Why does PBS need to take our money?
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Your proof of that is what?
I'm sorry. I forgot to mention. Marjoe Gortner is an atheist.
I'm not by any means claiming all evangelist con-artists are atheists. It would stand for reason though, that MG is not the only one. Once he fessed up, he could no longer do his con routine. If any evangelist con-artist were to fess up, their con would be over. Do you have any reason to think otherwise?
Where I feel you were being dishonest was by trying to associate a minister admitting to (for lack of a better term) white lying with blatant con-artists. The minister admitting to lying felt strong enough about his convictions in relationship to God to confess to lying at times. Certainly not to con people out of their money.
You had 2 examples of second party accusations. And it would appear you wanted to find a minister making a self-confession of being a deceiver, with the idea of suggesting no minister can be trusted.
Am I far off?
What I meant is that if I had to lie, it would be to save my life. Other than that, I have no reason to lie.
I know. And that was basically the same point of the sel confessing minister.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Not yet, thankfully.On the flip-side, if you asked me if I was extorting money from people, then using it to build a place where I could get those people to visit once a week to create a vicious cycle of filling their heads with lies and extorting more money, then no, I would never do such a thing because that would be highly immoral and unethical.
I had a pretty good idea that the link to the minister confessing to lying at times would fall along the lines of white lies. But I looked at it just to make sure. And sure enough....
As far as the con-artist lying, are you familiar with Marjoe Gortner?
He was a child evangelist trained to con church members out of their money. He even did an expose documentary on how it was done. So more than likely many evangelist con-artists are atheists.
And you also of course white-lied about lying at gun point. We all know what you meant, but there's that odd chance that someone might think you're in law enforcement. And unless you carry a gun, "not yet" is not part of the equation.
But where most of us men tend to "white lie" is to give an impression that we're border-line Double-O secret agents. We don't flat out lie. But we give that impression in a subtle way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
If someone told you they saw a flying pig in a remote area of Wisconsin, what kind of detailed explanations with evidence would you require? Given that they didn't have a camera.That's not really how the discussion was going. Et was claiming he knows himself his claims about a Creator are true, so I used the example that I knew pigs could fly and that if neither one of us was going to offer any detailed explanations with evidence, then both claims can be dismissed.
Sure, but neither one was probably using reason, logic or rationale based on evidence, they were both using faith based on Scriptures
Suppose there were 2 people that witnessed that flying pig in a remote area of Wisconsin. One claimed the pig was a Berkshire, the other claimed it was a Hampshire, both basing their claim on their understanding of each specie's fur colors. Would you say they were using logic, reasoning, and rationale by determining specie fur color? Or not using logic, reasoning, and rationale based on your belief that flying pigs don't exist?
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Has that ever happened?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
If the person can't explain anything in regards to God, why then would they claim that what they say is legitimate? I used the example of flying pigs. If I can't explain why pigs can fly, but will claim I know they can, how is that legitimate
Depends. If someone claims they've seen pigs fly in some remote area of Wisconsin, and they didn't have a camera at the time, if you were interested to find out if it were true, you'd take a trip to that remote location in Wisconsin.
If you don't, you're left with the same problem about God. You could just base you're assumption on the fact that you never saw a flying pig.
The problem is there's a possibility there may be a flying pig there. The person who makes the claim is not at fault if there is and you never find out because you can't expect people to always carry a camera. Not everyone uses a smart phone.
I wouldn't agree with that, God wants people to have faith in Him.
If 2 Christians were playing golf together, and one of them leaned towards pre-tribulation, the other mid-tribulation, couldn't both of them still have faith in God?
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Out of curiosity, do ever lie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Never mind being flippant. Those verses tell us all what baptism is all about and there is no mention of ` come be obedient and have your sins washed away in the water".You just make up crap and don't expect to be challenged on what you preach. You don't like it when someone has the audacity to challenge you or your scripture. this is a religion discussion forum not a preachers pulpit.
Not at all. Makes no difference to me.
You just wasted time re-posting this. The reason I didn't respond the first time is because I think you twisted everything I said. I'm not going to be a sounding board for your personal anger.
Our iconversation has become a complete mess. If you want to continue the conversation, I'll leave it to you to do the clean-up. A good way to start
would be looking back on every post you made where you said "you said", and ask yourself "did he really say that?" And if you're not sure, a proper way to address it would be to ask for clarification.
Whether or not you do this is up to you. It's not a plea. I don't really care either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You left out the quote where I asked you to define the Hebrew word "ra". And I don't think it was because it got buried amongst too many comments, and you ended up missing it.
I will leave it up to you to define it. Either way it doesn't matter to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I have to ask this question and hope others can chime in with their opinions.Is it fair that any claim can be made without explanations and they are all considered legitimate, no matter what the claim?
I don't think any claim regarding God have been without explanations. But in regards to God, the explainer can only go so far, and then the rest might be up to the hearer.
I think that principle could apply in a number of other subjects as well.
If it is fair, then why are there disagreements in religious discussions between theists
If we use Christianity, and for the sake of argument the God of the Bible does existing, let's assume God meets all Christians at a starting point we all agree on. The simple message of salvation. From that starting point we all find out that God is real.
Beyond that many verses in the Bible are not quite (for lack of a better description) easy. And because I think God made us to love studying, exploring, thinking, and yes; applying logic and reason, we will disagree on a number of texts. And I think the verse that encourages us Christians to be like-minded is not meant to suggest we all agree on every verse and doctrine, but to be unified in spite of doctrinal differences unless they deviate from the original message we corporately agree on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What ever are you talking about man?Lamentations 3:38 King James Version (KJV)38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? <<<<<<<<<<<< this is a question asked and not a statement. It is saying that ` both good and evil come from god ` no matter how much you - predictably- want to change it and wish it to mean something other than what it actually states.
More of your numerous false and word twisting accusations. Where did I imply it wasn't a question, or, but rather a statement?
I don't wish it to mean anything. I'll tell you what. I think you understand that the Hebrew translation for evil in that verse is ra. So with that understanding (I hope), give me the definition of that Hebrew word ra. Don't give me a definition of the English word evil.
And as much as you oppose cross-referencing other verses, which by the way is a valid and respected form of biblical study; comparing scripture with scripture, I'm going to do it anyway.
Job 2:10
But he said unto her, “Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
What would you suggest evil, which is also translated from the Hebrew word ra means in this verse?
Genesis 44:34 King James Version (KJV)
34 For how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father.This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ does not explain the origins of Evil.
I would suggest not jumping ahead of ourselves here. There seems to be at least 2 issues that I've seen. Specific verses that use the word evil that you claim prove that God created evil as the opposite of good in the moral sense. (God spoke the word and "poof", the desire to do wickedness, and God saw that it was good). And the question of where did evil originate? I might be wrong about this, but that's what I've perceived so far. If you can prove that the word evil in those specific verses you've given means that God created the desire to do evil, then there's no need to worry about it's origin.
A reason I'm suggesting we not jump too far ahead is that it will inevitably result in long tedious posts with multiple quotes in one post. And it's easy
to miss statements and quotes, thus leading to possible accusations of avoiding statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am still waiting for you to direct me to the "believers who've been giving answers here" concerning the question of the topic: the origins of evil.I have given my answer, but, not surprisingly, it is a answer that isn't accepted by the Christian apologist.:God said - "I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things". Isaiah 45:7. There is also Lamentations 3:38 saying both evil and good come from god.Tell me, would a god claim to be the creator of evil if he wasn't?
The "evil" in both those verses "ra" have 2 basic meanings in the Hebrew translation. Natural or moral. The first 2 words provided in my Concordance is adversity, and affliction. Either of those 2 would be a sufficient description. So rather than God creating evil (or immorality), creating a form of judgment would be what's suggested.
If you don't accept that translation for those 2 specific verses, here's another example being used with the same Hebrew word.
Genesis 44:34 King James Version (KJV)
34 For how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father.
34 For how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father.
The NIV version replaces the word evil with misery. Would you agree that the word misery would be more appropriate in context than some form of immorality?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Lol.
I think I spelled it that way out of laziness. Sometimes when a user name has a mixture of letters, numbers, hyphens, etc., there's a tendency to sort of wing it on a post rather than trying to look for it.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You probably are right but.I can picture someone taking three years off church.Then the day they go back to church, i bet god says not a single thing to them about taking 3 years off.Do you think this also ?
That's a tough one. My problem is that I would be tempted to personalize it, and suggest that God would have been relieved for those 3 months, or 3 years.
And I don't want to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Let me clarify: I'm not at all alleging that John was complicit in the creation of this Luciferian rite. I'm suggesting that the association of water with Baptism--particularly John's mention--is being used by Luciferians to veil their Luciferian rite as a Christian one. One such example would be Catholicism. Catholicism is paganism. Catholicism is Luciferian. Of course, their Luciferian rites and rituals extend beyond just Water Baptism (e.g. prayers to Mary, the Eucharist, the pope and cardinals head dresses and staffs, magisterial privilege, etc.)As far as parishioners, I can only suspect that they are unwitting in these Luciferian rituals. If you were baptized by being submerged into a body of water, then yes, you were (unwittingly) practicing a Luciferian ritual.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I don't think I have any real argument with you that I can tell at the moment. Christians using the same method of Baptism (submerging-reemerging) is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. Unless there's an argument of copying from/stealing from. Then it would be like any other pagan practice/ceremony/holiday/mythology copying argument.
As far as the portion of the title "What's the big deal?", I had my own idea, but of course left it open for one's personal interpretation. Basically, if Baptism doesn't save one's soul, what's the big deal? Why would it be necessary? And the Catholic belief about Baptism would be an example. (As a side-note, I'm not aware of them practicing submergence in Baptism). And an issue with some atheists. I've heard an atheist say when asked if they had been born again, said yes, because they were Baptized. The atheist went on to argue that if an astronaut tried to become born again while orbiting, they couldn't because they wouldn't have the water, or necessary amount of water, or proper facility to get Baptized.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Hey Deb!
I owe you an apology. I just noticed that in another thread I called "Deb8able".
As far as no singing for 3 weeks, what's your take on no karaoke for 3 weeks?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not sure if there's a particular point here. I'm certainly not arguing that there's no such thing as a theistic con artist.Atheistic and theistic con artists alike.
Tyran (I think that's part of the user name he was using at the time), whom you agreed with, has a tendency to suggest there's a large gulf between theists and atheists in terms of morality and intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm not suggesting that you were implying anything. I'm merely using your statements as a backdrop or context to submit my posits. The ancient Hebrews have long used bodies of water for ritualistic cleansing, but Baptisms were never associated with water outside of metaphorical language. So when asked, "Water Baptism: What's the Big Deal?" I'm stating that the big deal with Water Baptism is that it's not Hebraic, Abrahamic, Judaic, or even Christian. I'm stating that the submergence and reemergence from bodies of water, as is typical with Water Baptism, is Luciferian symbolism. It represents the reincarnation of Asar as his son Heru. Asar is submerged into the water after his death, and reemerges as Heru. Heru is also known by the monikers "Oannes" and "Dagon" the fish god. Thus the conclusion I extend from my premises is that Water Baptism is a veiled Luciferian ritual.
Yes, the ancients Hebrews have long used bodies of water for ritualistic cleansing, and water is used metaphorically throughout the Bible. I don't see any conflict there. I'm not implying that Water Baptism is the sole property of any ancient culture or religion.
As far as your conclusion that the Water Baptism practiced by John the Baptist or Christians in general is veiled Luciferian symbolism, all I can say is it's an interesting take. And, I can respect your opinion. I don't see any reason to accept it as anything but your opinion. I don't see any reason to think that the reincarnation of Asar has anything to do with Christ's command for His followers to be Baptized, unless you can show me otherwise.
These comments by the way didn't go unnoticed.
Every time these so-called "Christians" perform a water baptism, it's surreptitious veneration of Heru.
And...
John's mention of water during Baptism was metaphorical, not literal, or even symbolic.
Forgive me if these fall into the category of it should be so obvious, but I definitely would like clarification.
When you say so-called "Christians", this could mean false Christians (which I think is usually the case). Or, there really is no such thing as a Christian. (We're just unaware Luciferian practitioners). I'm not even sure how important this is to your conclusion of veiled Luciferian ritual.
So I assume what you're suggesting is that when I was Baptized, I, and the ministry Baptizing me were unknowingly practicing a Luciferian rite. And John the Baptist the same.
What's not clear is whether or not you're stating that John was unbeknownst to us Christians, in on this Luciferian rite so to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Okay. I (think) I understand what you're saying now.
Well, if you think I'm implying that Baptism requires submergence into water, then no. I'm not.
Christ commands His followers to be Baptized. Whether it's submerged into water or not, the believer is to obey that command. The reason I referred to being submerged in a pool, lake, or river was simply because that's generally how it's done nowadays. John who performed the Baptism of Repentance Baptized in a river. I would say those being Baptized probably were submerged. But whether they were or not is not the issue. My point was simply that the water doesn't do the cleansing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Six times you mention baptism /abidance. Yet the gospels NEVER MENTION OBEDIENCE along with baptism , they tell us something entirely different. I did read your op, but have you read the scriptures?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 Judeaand 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)You see? it has EVERYTHING to do with forgiveness of sins and washing away sins. Not a single mention of "obedience".
You gave 3 verses that are direct commands to be Baptized, and you don't think obedience plays a part here? Wow! Was this apparent command actually optional?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you don't know that answers to questions on this subject but just happen to know what baptism is all about; " obedience" according to only you.
I might not be able to answer this question because I can't understand it. You may need to fix it up a bit. And I believe I mentioned that I'm not suggesting that "obedience" is the only or ultimate reason for water Baptism.
So was John the Baptist baptised or not?
Like I said, the Bible doesn't reveal that info. I think the problem is you're trying to turn this into a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Water Baptism may not have been required of him. Are you of the opinion that if a man stranded on a deserted island becomes a believer, he cannot ultimately be saved because there's no one else on the island to Baptize him?
I did. it was to do with what YOU believe and your opinions about baptism.
Well, I'm glad to hear you read it all.
It does. It also says that he - while in the womb - John recognised Jesus and kicked with excitement.
Well there you go! We don't seem to be in any conflict here.
Or are we?
. John recognized Jesus in the womb because - according to you - he may have been filled with the holy spirit but still appears confused; but not about who Jesus is when faced with Jesus the man, but about who should be baptizing who. The bible makes it clear that John the Baptist recognized Jesus the man right away, he wasn't confused about it at all. He recognised him as soon as he cast eyes on him saying ;
It's not my opinion that John was filled with the Holy Spirit inside the womb. He was filled with the Holy Spirit.
John1 : 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”;yet appeared confused telling Jesus that he - Jesus- should be baptising him - John, Why?And so far you haven't explained what is was that caused John to even believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place?Matthew 3:13
Sorry to try and answer your question with another question, but do you see any connection here?
John 13:8 New International Version "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."
Granted, it's a reverse scenario. John thinking the action should be taken on him, whereas with Peter it's the other way around.
Imagine a priest in a Catholic church confessional booth, and telling a church member on the other side of the curtain that he's going to confess his sins to him. The church member will probably say "No, I should be confessing my sins to you!" In other words, it's about honor and position.
Not John "the greatest man" born of woman and ""more than a prophet" .
Being the greatest man didn't mean he was perfect. Moses was the most humblest man. He still had his problems.
So that is a non answer then. You don't know why John refused Jesus a baptism and you are struggling to explain why John believed that it was supposed to be the other way around and that Jesus should baptise him.
John did not refuse to Baptize Jesus. And if I'm struggling, it's just trying to explain it in a way you'll understand.
No, that would be John the baptist himself who turned out to be the skeptic when locked up in Herod's cell, wasn't it.?"When John, who was in prison, he'd heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”.Matthew 11:1-3Really!?
Yes. He was in prison, wondering why he still there whilst hearing about Jesus healing people, and spreading the news of salvation. Are you still having a problem with the notion of John although being the greatest, was still not perfect?
But he had some kind of authority to perform this ritual. He had been doing it some time before Jesus came to him.
Something to chew on.
Galatians 1:11-12 New International Version (NIV)
Paul Called by God
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Paul Called by God
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Basically, ultimately it's God who gives the authority.
Well we don't know that, but if that was the case, why then would he even think that Jesus should baptise him a second time?
If John thought he needed to be baptized a second time (like if he somehow knew in the womb he was Baptized in the Holy Spirit), don't you think he would have had a fellow believer Baptize him (to make it ceremonially official)?
It's apparent that what John meant was, if anyone should be doing the baptizing between you and I, I should be the one baptized by you.
And is there a single piece of biblical evidence to support that? and you appear to have skirted your own explanation where you state:"It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure". So this hardly explains my question of why the Only Son of god would need to be cleansed, washed and made pure, does it.
Yes, I do think there's evidence to support that. Jesus' life was all about obedience to the Father.
Phillippians 2:8
And being found in the fashion of a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross.
Why do you think Baptism would be any different?
And Jesus did not need cleansing. The water itself didn't clean anyone. That is, it didn't save anyone. Jesus also did not need to die a sinner's death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism. Are you of the opinion that historically speaking, John the Baptist did not baptize anyone? Or that there was no John the Baptist?Water Baptism is a Luciferian rite, intended to show obeisance to the fish god Dagon, a.k.a. Oannes, a.k.a. Heru (son of Asar a.k.a. Osiris.) Remember that when Asar died, he was thrown into the water and reemerged as Heru. Every time these so-called "Christians" perform a water baptism, it's surreptitious veneration of Heru. John's mention of water during Baptism was metaphorical, not literal, or even symbolic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me. The top quote was from me, but everything else I think was from EtrnlVw. Is that who you meant to address?
And EtrnVw has addressed the question of evil very clearly. I don't know if anyone could be more clear. I can almost feel the potential frustration of breaking it down the way he has only to be fired back at with the same question.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
But according to Tyran you wouldn't have been able to figure that out if you were a Christian (or spiritual). Does that make any sense to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yet somehow managed to find themselves in the position and have the authority to baptist (dupe) others. Strange it is that although the dupester is in this position one has to ask where he himself got his authority to dupe/baptise. It says a lot about "spiritual cleansing" and being received by god, and god knowing his own, doesn't it?But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .
I don't think it says anything about spiritual cleansing. Only that there are con-artists out there using religion as their tool. And for the record, I don't know if the particular atheist dupester I was talking about (Marjoe Gortner) baptized anyone.
But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .Who baptised John the Baptist?Where did John the Baptist get his authority to baptise anyone?
First off, I'm wondering if you read my post, or are just responding to a thread about baptism using common skeptic questions.
The Bible doesn't get into specifics as far as who may have baptized him in the ceremonial sense. Scripture does point out that he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. And the reason I'm wondering if you actually read the O.P., is because one of my emphasis was on how baptism was not confined to legalism. If John was not ceremonially baptized, then his position would be similar to the repentant thief on the cross. Obedience to ceremonial baptism was not necessary for obvious reasons for the thief.
As far as authority, again, the Bible doesn't specifically say. From the top of my head, I would say the Holy Spirit of by which he was filled. As far as I know, his baptism may have occurred while in the womb. Others may be able to give more insight though.
Can you explain why the " only begotten Son,"i.e. the son of GOD and born of a pure virgin would need to be cleansed and "made pure" symbolically or otherwise? John 3:16
As I stated, baptism is an act of obedience. The beginning of a journey of continual obedience in fulfilling the call. Thus, Jesus was acting as a model of obedience. And again, others may have more insight.
Why was John the baptist "the greatest ever born of woman" so confused as to whom should be baptising whom?
John the Baptist was still human. The confusion would be hardly startling. He recognized who Jesus was to some degree when he leaped in the
womb. Now he's encountering the Son of the living God face to face. Who wouldn't be confused (or overwhelmed) under those circumstances?
What caused John to believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place? Matthew 3:13
As I stated, he just encountered the Son of the living God face to face. Who wouldn't be overwhelmed at the prospect of being asked to Baptize the Son of the living God?
Why had John forbid Jesus to be baptized in the first place? Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,..."https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A13-17&version=KJVCan you explain why John the Baptist said Jesus should baptise him?
I don't think this was an issue of legalism, e.g., the rule book on water baptism states that the Son of God has to baptize me, or we're breaking the rules. I would refer back to my statement of John the Baptist simply being overwhelmed at the prospect. And of course others may have more insight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Would you assume all created gods to be the same/like-minded? Possibly some having a meaner demeanor than others?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
This may sound strange, but your post is the most logical response so far.
I'm absolutely speechless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyran_Ohsor
The word "call" can be interpreted in many ways. Most Christians would most likely love to wax lyrical about God informing His subject that "it is time to be as one with Me" .
Of course, in reality "the call" is nothing more than a voice within the head of someone who is impressionable, naive, gullible and overcome with a shot of addrenalin-infused elation at finding his or herself's place in life.Religious organisations are just as enthusiastic at the prospect of sucking a new member into its fold and what better way to put the seal on the contract by performing a ritualistic indoctrination ceremony. From this point onwards the (previously) lost soul is reminded that there is no turning back from salvation as the consequences would be dire.Delusion is a common trait of the weak and confued and Churches certainly don't miss a trick in capitalising on it.
It's definitely true that many church folk have been duped. Here's the problem; some of the dupesters were, or are, atheists. Have you ever heard of Marjoe Gortner? He was a child evangelist trained to con church goers out of their money. He eventually fessed up as an adult, and basically did an expose on evangelist con-artistry. Sort of like when pro wrestlers fesses up about how the matches are scripted ending the kayfabe era of pro wrestling. So obviously there's a number of evangelist con-artists that are atheists. So it would appear that in a number of cases the scumbags are atheists.
And although the "honk-if-you're-an-atheist" era is relatively new, the atheist con artist doesn't focus on merely church folk. Do you remember the Zeitgeist movie scam? How many atheists do you think were duped on that one? Yeah! Atheists will lie. And impressionable, naive, and gullible atheists do fall for their lies.
Created:
-->
@Tyran_Ohsor
It is a cool test but, deadly accurate.The outcome is not to show one person is better than the other. It shows that those who gravitate to things spiritual, tend to make judgements on face value and are more conceptual than say someone who is more rational, logic and would make a great rocket scientist. Which is why employers quite often use the test to test the suitability of candidates for certain tasks.In the former case, I hear there is a great demand in the workplace for janitors and number plate stampers.
Your idea doesn't mean much unless employers provide this test to weed out spiritual folk.
What's obvious right off the bat is that the ball is not $10. The number 10 or $10 figure is the distraction. From there it's just a matter of doing the math, however long that may take.
I would strongly suggest creating a personal comic book superhero for therapeutic reasons. An atheist superhero with the proverbial "A in a circle" on his chest. A fantasy world you can feed on where there are no Christian rocket scientists, all religious or spiritual people are janitors and number plate stampers. And you can put it on the internet for others with the same need.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread is not meant to suggest the only, or ultimate reason for water baptism. But like many commands in the Bible, suggest a lesson.
First off, when a convert accepts the call to be baptized, they are not submitting to being cleansed by the H2o they will be submerged in. If someone is baptized in a swimming pool, the water doesn't transform into a divine detergent. It remains the same water with the same chlorine. If it's a river or lake, it will remain the same murky water, and probably won't make much difference to the nearby fish. Water baptism itself won't save anyone's soul. It's not ultimately necessary for salvation. If it was, the thief on the cross who repented would not have been allowed entrance into paradise.
It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure. But the water itself does no spiritual cleansing. Baptism is symbolic, and an act of obedience.
When one becomes a believer, the point where God meets them in a divine way, they find they have a calling.
Ephesians 4:1 New International Version (NIV)
Unity and Maturity in the Body of Christ
4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.
Unity and Maturity in the Body of Christ
4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.
To embark on that journey requires obedience and to follow a spiritual leading. Whether that calling is to become a minister, or a witness in a secular field, etc., it's a spiritual journey that requires the aforementioned. If someone encounters the living God, gives their life to Him, etc., logically if that person refused to be baptized, there would probably be something seriously wrong. Why would they refuse a commandment which is often made in public to some degree, usually relegated to other believers? If that person, for instance, expressed a desire to get involved in a ministry that's part of the church that would be baptizing them, it would certainly be a red flag for the church leaders because it would appear that this person would ultimately refuse leadership. And of course ultimately, it would be a pretty sure sign that the person would not follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in terms of fulfilling their calling (running the race).
This principle of relatively simple obedience can be applied to a number of ceremonial practices and observances mandated in the Bible, like communion. Again, nothing magical about the juice and wafers. They do not transform into the literal body and blood of Christ (are you listening Deb8able?). But the obedience serves a similar purpose of simple obedience to Christ, and the Body of Christ. And serves a purpose of obedience in
examining our hearts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I was addressing 2 specific posts. Are those 2 posts not on topic?
But as far as what you're interested in, it's obvious not in finding answers, but making a statement to convince somebody other than the believers who've been giving answers here, and at least in one other thread. There were unacknowledged, or unanswered responses in that other thread. It's actually kind of puzzling why you abandoned another thread where this was topic was addressed, and started this new one.
It's as if you were frustrated about the responses you were getting, and that you weren't convincing anyone, so you made this thread in hopes of getting attention from other posters due to fear that maybe that other thread wasn't getting noticed.
One of the major themes, in your quest for whatever you're trying to forcefully prove, is your absolute refusal to understand that the translations from Hebrew and Greek to English needs to be many maticulously studied to get a proper understanding. If you don't do that, you're going to be like the ugly American who thinks he's speaking Spanish when he puts "el" in front of an English word, and "o" at the end of one.
Have you ever watched a foreign movie with sub-titles? Sometimes there's no word that directly matches a word being translated for the sub-titles. So they end up choosing a word that they think would be the most suitable.
Have you ever seen someone post a message in English on the internet that looked like jibberish? That's probably because they used google
translate which works on an auto process that only tranlates one word at a time, not sentence structure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think some might get a bit too hung up on the term spirituality. The same would hold true for the term supernatural. In other words, for the latter, what we might consider supernatural would be natural for a creator of a universe. We have no way of knowing how to create a universe apart from a synthetic one in a lab. So the idea presumes a supernatural accomplishment. A spiritual realm could probably be termed another way that doesn't anoint itself a religious myth.
As to your question, I don't have a problem with the idea of a creator with no beginning, because we're so limited in our understanding of time to begin with. I think the cliche example dealing with the problem of one traveling back in time and preventing their birth is actually a good example of our inefficiency to make any definite claims against an eternal God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
From a thinking atheist point of view of course, religion is the true personification of evil whereby those in authority use the supernatural in order to manipulate those who are naive, gullible and weak, for their own nefarious and self-centered gains.
i couldn't agree more.
i.e., a (pseudo) intellectual version of who has the biggest penis. And a (maybe) slightly more mature version of my daddy can beat up your daddy.
Created:
-->
@Tyran_Osaur
It's a cool test. I might be missing something here, but is the idea of introducing us to this quiz meant to suggest that a spiritual person is less likely to get it than a non-spiritual person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
And I have property in Freehold, Iowa I'd like to sell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not sure what you meant re circuses and zoos.Nonetheless when you consider the necessary logistics of the ark thing, it would have needed to have been one hell of a boat.
I was just giving a couple of examples as to the why animals today are transported by ships.
As for the hypothesis problem:The underlying dilemma with all creation hypotheses is the something from nothing principle.I personally cannot accept the idea that the something exists eternally.
What is your take on an eternal universe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
then who?
Okay everyone. It's going to take "all" of to answer this. Maybe by the year 4056 we can complete it, but it'll take everyone's participation. I suggest we start out with the 50 States, then the Canadian provinces, then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and go from there. We'll start with the State of California:
Arnold Schwarzennegger, Clint Eastwood, Gina Hernandez, Kelly Washington, Vincent Nguyen, George Martinez, Jimmy O'Connell, Ira Washington, Cory Yashimoto......
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
RoderickSpode reference your post 28 above is, for the best part, all irrelevant to the topic this thread.All of those reading here haven't missed the fact that you have steered clear of the murder of all of Jobs innocent children and avoided the subject like the plague.
Really? Did you have some sort of a PM conference?
And you referencing other passages and verses from the scriptures that have absolutely nothing to do with issues raised in this particular topic concerning YOUR god, won't change the fact that your god will murder for little or no reason at the drop of an hat, as proven by just the few examples that I have shown in post #1 page 1.
Going back to post #1, and referencing the other scriptures,
1. What would be the difference between the God of the Bible causing a house to cave in killing it's occupants, and an impersonal deistic creator
allowing a house to cave in killing it's occupants?
2. What would be worse, the God of the Bible causing a house to cave in killing it's occupants, and then taking their spirit/soul into paradise; or a deistic creator allowing a house to cave in killing it's occupants, producing complete death?
Neither do I. Only someone really, really stupid and stuck in the backward superstitious times of the ancients would believe that to be that case , wouldn't they.I believe it was another god he had punished for endowing mankind the knowledge and ability of reproduction, but the why and what you choose to call it is all irrelevant . As I said, this being, what ever YOU choose to call it was indeed sentenced to be lower than ALL of the creature of gods creation,yet YOUR god felt the need to have to prove something to it and YOUR god sanctioned the murder of ALL of his faithful servants children. WHY!!!?"So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. Genesis 3:14
What exactly are you having a problem with? The curse was placed on the devil. What's the big mystery? I don't know of any Bible scholar who thinks differently. Are you still stuck on the crawling/walking thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not at all.Floods are common place.Boats are boats.And mythical exaggerations are what they are.
And I may as well add boats transporting animals (like to zoos, circuses, etc.).
And the god things is a valid hypothesis, but falls down because of the existence of a god....The theist hypothesis like all other hypotheses never quite start at the beginning.
Would you mind expounding on the underlined portion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
+1Good post, I don't know why everyone abandons the figurative style of writing in the scripture when it's so obvious. I know part of it is because of the poor interpretations of religious people but this is a no-brainer. There was never a talking snake lol, the snake just represents temptation.This is why atheists get all bothered because they think we believe in talking animals and so we follow an ignorant book, when that was never the point at all. Silly stuff like this we have to then explain.
Thanks EtrnlVw!
Yes, and the focus on the snake has lead to ideas like a snake with legs, and dragons holding a conversation with Eve. And also notions that the snake/serpent being beautiful and luring Eve into sex.
I'm sure you've heard it all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No one has as yet proven the whole flood, ark and Christian god thng.So believers and non-believers alike are always somewhat jumping the gun when attempting to interpret and contextualise, biblical mythology.I would suggest that we should all appreciate the hypothetical nature of such discussions.
I don't think I have any problem with appreciating any type of discussion.
As far as proving the whole flood, ark, and Christian god thing, do you see any reason they should be dismissed as possibilities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Even when it is actually showing a clear contradiction of this gods own commandment. You really are scrapping the barrel and clutching at straws here. For one to order "do not kill" and then in the very next breath kills willfully, is nothing short of insane double standards and the very height of hypocrisy.These act of willful murder for absolute non reason or trivial reasons only proves your god loves no one - not even his most faithful and trusted "servants". humans to this maniac are simply ten a penny, small and insignificant , no matter how loyal. And your apologetic opinion of it being "absurd" is absurdity at its best. It is as absurd as the murder of ALL of Jobs children for the fun of it.
If we ran along with your assessment of the God of the Bible being evil, then you're misrepresenting your view of a god or creator by singling out the God of the Bible (as you use terms like "your god"). Since everyone ultimately dies, any creator, including the deistic creator would be guilty of your claim. So your real problem cannot be with the God of the Bible only. It would have to include not only every concept of god in a religious format, but a deistic (impersonal) god/creator, who created us, and left us alone to fend for ourselves and ultimately die. Even the Richard Dawkins/panspermia alien creators would be guilty for bringing us into an existence leading to ultimate death. It doesn't matter whether someone dies in old age (whatever that is), in their prime, or in infancy.
So in your worldview as an atheist, you would have to conclude that if we weren't brought into the world by complete natural means, our existence
is based on a completely unjust proposition.
Here was a promise given to a jailer in the book of Acts.
Acts 16:31 New International Version (NIV)
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
This was not a promise that his household would not face physical death. Not even a promise that they would all live to be old (whatever that is). They all would die a physical death at some point.
The same promise was given to a Roman centurion in Acts 11.
He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
Again, no promise of life longevity.
The type of death you've been referring to was physical. Life continues on afterwards.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 ESV / 762 helpful votes
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
This was meant to comfort those who've lost loved ones to physical death. It would be unlikely that God would take His children into His Kingdom if He didn't love us.
In reference to the underlined word infancy, do you support abortion?
AND!!!You haven't addressed the point of why a god would even need to prove anything to anyone never mind to a lowly creature that he had already condemned to crawl around on its belly ` for the rest of its days` or why it was "walking to and fro on the earth and up and down"."From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".Job 1;7 "WALKING"!? It was supposed to have been condemned to "crawl on its belly and eat dust for ever" since almost the beginning of time.. Genesis 3:14
Well in reference to the snake, I don't think a literal snake spoke to Eve. I know some believe Satan possessed a reptile. I don't see any reason to assume that at all. The deceiver was Satan, not a snake. The author referred to him as a snake, possibly because he had no other name for him. Or, he didn't want to describe Satan in any flattering way. Jesus referred to certain religious folk as vipers. It's not unusual for people to refer to other people as snakes today. The author was either Moses, or someone(s) living about the same time as Moses. They were relating a snakes' cunningness to Satan. Moses was obviously very familiar with snakes. The curse was on Satan, and the description of the curse being a metaphor of the dismal lifestyle a snake seems to possess. They were forced to be held captive and be subject of magic tricks. Probably run over by carts and
chariots, sometimes on purpose. So it's not a description on how Satan would have to maneuver.
There was nothing tempting about the serpent (Satan) who was probably not physically visible just as God wasn't. The temptation was the fruit. To
use a crude example, a John is not tempted by the pimp. The John is tempted by the prostitute. The pimp may be their as an instrument to lure the John. But there's nothing appealing about the pimp.
That is correct, WE do! And and even those deemed to be judges of the law and those who make those laws deem murder to be a crime and unlawful to murder will be held to account if they themselves have committed murder. As many cases in history have proven .
Some of your references were direct judgments via a violation. But as I stated, physical death simply involves departure from the physical body. After departure from the physical body, we see eternal life.
2 Corinthians 5:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It has only one meaning;theocracy/θɪˈɒkrəsi/noun
- the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as king.noun: Theocracy; noun: the Theocracy
Basically, rather than being ruled by priests in the name of God, the ruler would be God Himself. The Israelites rejected this type of theocracy, opting for a human king, which may or may not have been a godly person.
There's no misunderstanding with your first definition. That's why I said It depends what you mean by theocracy. Or, which of the two definitions is the OP referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Irreverent. The bible - believed by millions - tells the story of a man Uzzah that was murdered by god when this gods own command is "thou shalt not kill".Exodus 20:13 King James Version (KJV)13 Thou shalt not kill.
It most definitely is relevant. If you think it's fiction, what gives you the idea you can speak for the author? Who are you to designate who the heroes and the villains are?
People sometimes joke about Sherlock Holmes And Watson being gay. Silly of course, but at least it's tongue-in-cheek. The fact of the matter is though, they are not gay unless Arthur Conan Doyle says so.
Your trying to use Exodus 20:13 to suggest a contradiction is absurd. We have laws against killing people as well. But if someone commits high treason, they're put to death. Since you're the one who started the thread, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't proven anything except your personal dislike for the God of the Bible. It's as irrelevant to me as someone disliking Trans Ams. I like them and couldn't care less who doesn't. Yeah, we get that you don't like the God of the Bible. So what? I don't watch the Batman franchise movies, but I hear tell that the Joker has become more popular a character than Batman. Sometimes that happens. But that doesn't change the author's or script writer's point of view.
If you believe the incident happened, you'll have to prove the real person named Uzzah didn't see an excuse for bragging rights by touching the ark, using the stumbling of the donkey as an excuse, when the others apparently respected God's command. You'll even have to prove the ark needed
steadying to avoid tipping over.
If you think it's fiction, then you'll have to prove that the author's point of view is yours. And then you'll have to prove it's fiction.
Created: