Total posts: 1,044
-->
@Stephen
And are you suggesting that I have stolen something from yourself or RationalMadman? If so , what was it that I stole from you or s/he?
I hadn't given any thought to that. Why? Do you feel guilty about something?
Someone actually did try to steal one of my tires off of my truck the other night. Any connection to that and your question (in regards to myself)?
And for the life of me I just don't see how you manage to keep missing this princess.>>>>
Well sir (I'm secure enough in my manhood not to feel I need to try and emasculate an obvious male on a discussion forum by calling them princess, etc.), I'm afraid that if you don't get it now, you probably never will.
" Could it really be that Lucifer is just another name for Jesus of which he had many.? We are never allowed to forget that Jesus was with god from the beginning, as was Lucifer Satan /devil serpent, where he was also known as the Word. John 1"Here is the link to the thread in question, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4216-lucifer-and-jesus?page=1 go read the question I posed
Irrelevant!
Oh great, now you got me stealing one of your signature phrases.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless, a church and it's associated and variable requirements of infrastructure, therefore necessitate variable levels of promotion and marketing....Horses for courses as it were.The truly devout will pray in the kitchen.
Well, I suppose if a marquee on a small rural church, or small inner-city church that says "Join us this Sunday" qualifies as marketing. I would say just about every business does some form of marketing. Even straight up charities.
I was primarily focusing on your statement here.
Religion after all is big business and therefore the perpetuation of the various derivations of the myths is now essential chiefly for this reason.
Are the small low income churches I'm talking about that practice a relatively modest form of marketing in the category of big business?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
There's little chance of that though is there? What you have to offer this or any forum is not worth knowing in my opinion unless the reader is a complete dullard and susceptible to any old bullshite written by a complete and utter boring nause
I fully concede that you're the full on interesting character in this thread.
So, how did it all start?
Did you start by stealing your classmate's show and tell ideas in the second grade? What?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are boring the shite out of me already.
I pretty much have to be boring now.
If I say something interesting, you might steal it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
SCRUB THAT REQUEST above . I HAVE JUST READ THOSE LINKS, and there is nothing there that would have convinced me to " admit" that YOU "inspire" me in my thoughts , opinions any theories.. Now, if you came to the conclusion that Jesus is Lucifer all on your own , then fkn good for you sunshine, I applaud you.. But your links don't actually prove that you did, do they?
Are you actually telling us that something that appears similar may just be coincidental?
I'm not sure if RM realizes just how timely this thread is!
Oh....and almost forgot.
LOL!
Created:
-->
@DeusVult
Sure I have, but I change my opinion to conform to what the Church teaches. Do I like the idea of an eternal hell? No. Do I wish that there was some way for those who go to hell to be saved? Definitely. However, that is not for me to choose. The Church has been tasked with the salvation of souls and only in her can I be sure of the Truth. If I choose what is the truth, then I make myself Pope.
I wasn't talking about what we like or dislike. I don't like the thought of Hell either. But I don't disagree with it's reality in place of scripture. I'm talking about scripture itself. You can agree that scriptures in the Bible are the words from God with a priest, but maybe not the interpretation. And an opinion isn't necessarily absolute. Like I said elsewhere, I have an opinion regarding eternal security/OSAS. I could be wrong, but I sincerely disagree with what a number of people in a church I attend, including even a pastor believes. How can you deny a sincere opinion on scripture written for you?
Do you think that salvation depends on what individuals determine is right between whether a believer can lose their salvation or not?
Factions and doctrines began early shortly after the resurrection (if not sooner). Philippians 2:2 encourages being one in spirit, and of one mind. Do you think it means agreeing on every doctrine?
Titus 3:9 suggests avoid contentions and strivings about the law. I think it was well understood that believers although united with Christ were
going to have disagreement concerning even the law. The disagreement wasn't what was causing strife.
Now that doesn't mean I agree with everything my priest, bishop, or even the current Pontiff say (I disagree with him more than I ever thought it possible to disagree with a Pope). When they teach the faith I listen and attempt to modify my life. When they teach their own opinions, I am not obliged to follow what they say, but I give it consideration given who it is coming from.
How do you determine what is faith being taught, and what is opinion?
Not at all. This is central to Catholicism. We are all about the need for grace to keep our feet on the path. It is through unity with the Church and her sacraments that the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit are poured out upon the body of the Church.
I have to correct myself here, because I don't mean to imply that Catholics are not spirit lead. I think like in any denomination, church, bible study group, etc., there will be some spirit lead, others not. Yes, we need guidance from human authority. This actually goes beyond guidance from clergy and other church members. Like, we need guidance from secular sources often enough (the dentist, auto mechanic, tax preparer, etc.). And there's also the responsibility of being spiritually lead personally.
We can agree that all Christian should be united. Just as The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one, all should be one in the Body of Christ. I will say that the only true unity is through the unity that Jesus established - his Church with Peter as the cornerstone. Everything else is ultimately disunity and error.
Yes. But why suggest a particular church organization holds all truth over other churches?
Not at all.
I have to correct myself again. They're actually Charismatic Catholics. At least a little bit of a difference.
They seem to be a part of the Catholic system, but there's the obvious opposition from mainstream Catholics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If you found Jesus to be a living God, that would be a miracle right there. Then you wouldn't have any problem believing He was immaculately conceived, walked on water, etc. Right?
What should be proven is that Jesus lives right now at the moment, interacting with His creation. And that's where you come in.
You have people telling you "jump in, the water's warm". You keep asking them to prove it's warm. No, we're not going to run off to a drug store to get a thermometer. If you want to find out if the water's warm, you find out for yourself. Jump on in.
That's how silly the game is for those who insist on Christians proving that Jesus is God. You've been trying to scrutinize, and interpret various scriptures, how do you interpret this one?
Matthew 7:7
Verse (Click for Chapter)
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Do you read this as directed towards you, or do you read this as a believer to do it for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Because this is what Jesus told them. It is his body and blood.
Jesus also said He was the Vine, and the Door. Why couldn't His reference to bread and wine be figurative?
How do you think the related verses would be translated into English if the bread and wine were symbolic?
At the time Protestants did oppose heliocentrism. There were some Catholics who did oppose it and some who were open to it. The Church had great respect for the teachings ofAristotle, and Aristotle had been a proponent of the Geocentric model. Thus the majority of scientists of the time believed the Geocentric model to be accurate. Withoutconclusive proof the Church was not willing to contradict the teachings of so esteemed a philosopher. That doesn't mean that they refused to. You have to remember the Church does not act quickly, it takes time to review and consider.There were ways to read the scriptures both ways. The Church would follow the thinking of St. Augustine:"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size andrelative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for aninfidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
Is there a time frame on reviewing and considering?
At what point does the Catholic church call off further review and consideration?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
The Church teaches that if a person is invincibly ignorant that the Catholic Church is the church of Christ, but lives out an exemplary life holding true to natural law would receive what is necessary from God to gain salvation (even if it need be instruction from an angel on his/her deathbed).
Then this would probably mean that every believer not part of the Catholic church would be saved because they all would be ignorant about the Catholic church being the church of Christ. (A Baptist believer, Methodist believer, etc., believes they are in a church that's a part of the Body of Christ).
Created:
-->
@DeusVult
The Church councils. That is the bishops in union with the Pope, definitively declaring what has been the continual teaching of the Church.The Pope can also do the same, but usually does so through the councils.
Have you ever disagreed with any of the Catholic church's doctrines? Do you allow yourself to honestly disagree?
I don't agree with everything I hear the pastor say over the pulpit. Every once in awhile, they will say something I don't agree with.
Jesus made that promise to one Church. He lit a lamp and set it upon a lamp stand so to speak. That is like saying couldn't a king give anyone the ability to speak on his behalf? Well yes, but why would he? He has people to do that on his behalf. And the people can know that those ministers speak on his behalf because they are part of the official system that has been established.The Davidic kingdom was a prefigurement of the kingdom of Christ. In the Davidic kingdom the king had ministers to work and speak on his behalf. Additionally, there was a steward (like a prime minister) who had all the authority of the king himself, save the crown. As this was the system of the Davidic kingdom, this is the system of the Catholic Chruch.
Romans 8:14
Verse (Click for Chapter)
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.
I think the Catholic church overlooks the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit.
As an example, a member of a church I attended felt lead to go to China as a missionary. The pastors supported this, but didn't think he was ready. He felt ready, went to China during it's heaviest persecution era (before the government eased up on religion). And he's been there ever since. He's white, but Chinese in every other way.
My position is that God leads all of his children. And sometimes it's counter to the opinion of everyone else. How much emphasis does the Catholic church place on individual spiritual guidance (in conjunction with church authority as I'm not talking about non-submission)? Do you think a believer could only be lead to the Catholic church?
Yes He does. However, Jesus also left us a Church with His authority to teach the truth and provide the sacraments.
I agree. But why would you think it confined to the Catholic church?
Most of the denominations have a unique divine history. We can kind of get a clue as to their roots just from their names (Baptist, Methodist,
Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc.). They had genuine revelations meant to be shared with the Body of Christ as a whole. Unfortunately, this often didn't happen. So in one sense denominations are negative when they attempt to isolate themselves from the rest of the Body. Denominations can be a positive when they agree to get together and learn/benefit from one another.
Are you familiar with Pentecostal Catholics?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Maybe so.But any business undertaking ,small or large requires income and to be able to sell religion successfully at any level, requires astute marketing of the product.
Marketing for small rural churches and inner-city storefront churches might generally consist of a message on a marquee. A typical storefront church's income generally goes to paying employee salaries (except where workers volunteer), and food banks for the neighborhood's poor.
Is marketing a bad thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It makes no difference. My point was - AS YOU WELL KNOW - that there will always be a counter argument. I happen to agree with what is written in those links by those authors. You don' and won't accept that, and I don't care. I don't care that you dismiss any of those links. It simply proved my point that the MYTH of dying and rising god-men predate your god-man by hundreds if not thousands of years. And you STILL haven't shown me a single piece of evidence that proves your god-man is the only one to have "risen from the dead" or was 'immaculately conceived and born of "virgin" . You simply cannot accept that these Myths are not new or exclusive to your boy Jesus.If I had mentioned authors and their books saying the same it would have made no difference to you. But I shall remember that when YOU ever use links from the WWW as some kind of evidence or proof for one claim or another.
Of course, I don't know the authors you're into, but for the record, there are brilliant non-Christian writers, including atheists that write books on religion. The better one's are more objective. So there's different levels of non-Christian writers on the subject. From the more objective authors, to the extremists who look for every punctuation mark in the Bible that bares the slightest similarity with one in an ancient myth.
Then is all you have to do is debunk them and their claims don't you. But before you do that of course, you have to prove your own fkn claimsfirst!!!Can I suggest that you start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus, and we'll take it from their.
Matthew 7:7
Verse (Click for Chapter)
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
This is a bold claim from the Bible. This tells us that if you seek Him, you will find him. The question is, do you want to find Him?
So? I don't care. Why should that bother me...... at all?
Why should anything you've said bother me?
Me too. And I also believe I have a right to challenge what it is that you believe IN! You just don't like me doing that.
What makes you assume that? Because I disagree with you?
I do, and also, I will disbelieve what I " wilt " until I don't.
Sounds good to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If it is an adult who refuses baptism yet are baptized, they have not been baptized. If it is an infant, on whom the parents act on behalf of the child, then yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by refuses baptism, yet are baptized. Do you mean against their will? What about someone wanting to be baptized (maybe for the sake of family, denominational tradition), but is agnostic?
Baptism of desire. The Church has long taught it.
That part doesn't differ much from my view. When someone is found by Christ, becomes a child of God, they will want to be baptized. It would be a contradiction to be thankful for salvation, yet refuse the command to be baptized.
I don't see any scriptural need to suggest that at the right moment, under right conditions of thought and attitude, in the right spot (vicinity of body of water where baptism is taking place), the water itself becomes a divine detergent. Not that it's impossible, as I think it's clear that the pool at Bethesda had a divine miraculous quality.
It would be viewed as Abraham's Bosom.“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. - Luke 16:22A place of 'natural' happiness.
Do they view Abraham's Bosom as a temporary abode before God determines where one will spend eternity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The internet is the new 7-11 tabloid. That's why you pull up links so quickly to a genre equivalent to "Half man, half rat found" type articles we used to see at the convenience store counter. As long as there's gullible people, there will be an outlet for the type of articles for people who think that shape shifters are used for bodyguards for the president, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley are alive and working for the CIA, and every little tiny similarity between an ancient myth and the Bible cries plagiarism. And Krishna sounding like Christ? Have you noticed that Donald sounds like Ronald? Maybe Donald Duck and Ronald McDonald are one and the same?
Sometimes these fishers of a gullible audience write books and claim to be scholars. There (almost unbelievably....emphasis on almost) is actually a self proclaimed scholar who wrote a book and actually claimed Jesus promoted self-mutilation when saying And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off.... A child will read that verse, and know it's a metaphor.
You are right in saying there's a counter to every opinion. Including yours. I'm a pluralist. I believe individuals have a right to believe what they want. Please, by all means, believe what thou wilt!
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Religion after all is big business and therefore the perpetuation of the various derivations of the myths is now essential chiefly for this reason.
The majority of U.S. churches are small and low-income.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well now that just depends on who one reads and who's word it is you are willing to accept.The point is, is that your god - man is not the first of who it is said to have be born of a "virgin". there are many. You Christians have swaddled a real human being in a myth that you have plagiarized from the ancients.First off, in Greek virgin simply means young girl or maiden. It doesn't mean that the female is necessarily chaste or virgo intactaIn the case of Krishna his " virgin birth" birth simply means that he was born without his mother having sex. It doesn't necessarily mean that she was virgo intacta.But it matters not. The point is, is that your boys back story and biography is a fake, it is a myth, and what's more it is a plagiarized myth, told time and time again the world over and well before your god-man came onto the scene.You really need to study these things before trying to spring gotcha moment on people.Must try harder.
I apparently don't need to try at all. You keep putting your foot in your mouth.
First off, it's ironic that all of a sudden you're hip to broad definitions when translating the Greek language. The majority of our arguments revolved around translating from original language to English when the original language definition had a broader meaning. I think most of my definition references involved Hebrew translation. Is it that you only accept broad Greek definitions when translated into English and not Hebrew?
In addition, there's no textual evidence of Krishna not being conceived from sexual intercourse. And, you're now telling me Christ's virgin birth was plagiarized because Mary was a young girl or maiden. How old do you think Krishna's mother was?
And yes it does matter. You can't just make a list of alleged plagiarizing, and then later ignore one's shown to be inaccurate. You made a false claim. You can't claim it doesn't matter by throwing in words like many, expecting it to cover up your false statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Yeah. The Church itself has said that its authority does not extend into the scientific realm. Jesus did not leave that authority to the Apostles. If by some means the flat earthers are correct and the Geocentric model is correct, the Church would accept that. The salvation of souls is not dependent on the relative movement of the sun and earth.
I agree. Do you feel that if an evangelical Christian missionary leads an Indonesian village to Christ, that none of the villagers would be saved because the missionaries are not part of the Catholic church?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
The Galileo thing popped up at the same time at the Protestant revolt was in full swing. The Protestants were accusing the Papacy of denying the Bible for not condemning Galileo outright. Galileo on the other hand was saying that not only did you have to believe him, but that the Church had to change its teachings. As the Church's claim that it is the sole authority issues of Faith, this made it extremely difficult on the Pope.When Galileo wrote a defense of his position, what he wrote could be interpreted as calling Pope Urban VII "Simplicio" - a simpleton. He forced the Pope to act. He was however protected by the Pope from a much harsher sentence than he could have been convicted with.The Church's position was to follow the consensus of the best scientists. When they asked Galileo to prove his position by showing the parallax that must exist if his position was true, he couldn't. Yet he demanded that they accept his position as true. When there is an objection that you cannot answer, you cannot demand that standard model must be rejected. As noted Copernicus said the same thing, but he was not labelled a heretic - the Church took it into consideration with interest.
Why is the Catholic church so staunch on Transubstantiation? There's certainly no scientific evidence of it. And miracles that defy natural science are generally visible and made clear.
It didn't. However, the Protestants screaming that it did made patience to resolve the situation difficult. As the Pope's primary concern is the salvation of souls and the unity of the faith he was forced to act.
When you say It didn't, do you mean heliocentrism doesn't conflict with scripture. If so, I would agree with that. But my understanding was that the Catholic church's authoritative position was that it did conflict with the holy scriptures. Are you saying it was only the Protestants that opposed heliocentrism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Well it is a spiritual cleansing agent!
Then it wouldn't really matter who was baptized right?
In other words, if the water became a cleansing agent during baptismal ceremonies, anyone would be spiritually cleansed if baptized even if they weren't a believer.
The waters in the pool of Bethesda (and possibly the pool of Siloam) would heal anyone who stepped into the pool after an angel stirred the water. At least the text doesn't indicate prior mandatory repentance.
The very act of baptism forgives sin.
What if someone repents, and then dies on the way to baptism?
There was considerable historical debate as to whether children under the age of reason or the mentally handicapped required baptism as they would be free of personal sin, but still stained with original sin. This is where the theological concept of Limbo came from.
Is there any reference to Limbo in scripture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
i.e., I'll go on a rant to get you emotionally distracted so you forget I avoided this question.
So then this claim of yours is wrong?Krishna: Hindu god, born of a virgin devaki around 1200BC.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I wouldn't exactly refer to you as a symbol of honesty and integrity.
Created:
-->
@DeusVult
Here you have to make the distinction between the individual and official teaching.The doctrine of the Church is without error. Individuals can be in error. So not everything every priest, bishop or Pope says is protected against error.
I didn't mean individual as in a renegade priest. I understand there's a collective agreement involved.
Who decides the official teaching?
However, every Protestant would have to admit that Moses was given the ability to infallibly speak on God's behalf. So if God did it once, is he not able to make sure that the Church he founded does not teach error?
Is God not able to give the same ability to willing or chosen vessels from different bible believing denominations?
In the case of Moses it's apparent that the most of the Israelites were not interested in having a relationship with Yahweh.
As for Peter, he was not teaching that Christians had to follow the Jewish dietary laws. He simply held the personal belief that he had to continue the Jewish dietary laws. He was informed otherwise.
I was thinking more along the lines of associating with gentiles.
The Church is bound to its teachings and doctrine. That isn't to say that individuals have not made errors. So as an example, the Church cannot change its stance on Transubstantiation; it can say that the actions of individuals done in the name of the Church were not right/just/etc...
That's true. And that's why I'm an advocate of not coming to any absolute conclusions on any major doctrines. For instance, there have been Christians who've changed their minds on whether or not a Christian can lose their salvation. They'll say they believed one way, and then saw something in scripture, heard a message, or read a commentary that changed their mind. If they claim that God revealed it to them, then they can't change their mind because God told them. And if for some reason they should change their
mind, they have to confess that they were wrong about hearing from God.
I have an opinion I stand by on the OSAS doctrine, but I could eventually read, see, or hear something that may change my view.
I tbelieve God allows us to think and reason when studying scripture just as with anything else....like science.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm waiting for Athias to show up lol.
Me too! That would be really interesting.
Created:
-->
@DeusVult
One thing I perceive to be a problem with the Catholic church, is the claim of any particular individuals being the infallible oracles of God. Christians have to admit at times to have been in error, or thought they were in error. Even Peter had to do this when he had the vision of the unclean animals. He was a full fledged believer at the time, and had to acknowledge that he was tied to a traditional view. The Christians during the WWII who thought Adolph Hitler was the anti-christ (not just a anti-christ) had to admit they were wrong.
Can the Catholic church admit to error (at times)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Not all of these god-men were of virgin birth
So then this claim of yours is wrong?
Krishna: Hindu god, born of a virgin devaki around 1200BC.
Many of them were all the same person know by different names in different mystery cultures and settings. Mithra/Persia is a good example: AKA Osiris in Egypt - Dionysus in Greece - Bacchus in Rome/Italy - Attis in Asia Minor - Adonis in Syria and so on. The myth that has been wrapped around your god man Jesus is a combination of all of these BC myths.And you seem to be missing my point. I am not saying your god-man Jesus didn't exist and is a 'mythical' character . I am saying Christians have swaddled him in all of these myths of these earlier miracle working ancient gods born of virgins. See #16
What's the relevance? What has this have to do with your obviously questionable claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Its not an "attack" on Christ or Christians. You lot always have to play the victim at every given chance. I believe I have made myself more than clear and on hundreds of occasions now. So here it is again for the billionth time note underlined in bold>>>Christians have taken myths from many mystery schools, myths and legends and wrapped them around a very real human being who simply wanted to free his people -JEWS - from the Roman yoke and - according to many - paid with his life. That is the REAL biography of your Christ. Jesus was a JEW not a Christian. He taught at a JEWISH temple not a Christian church. he was a JEWISH priest not a Christian Priest. He preached to JEWS not Christians. He returned from the Egyptian mystery schools to save JEWS, not Christians. He was king of the JEWS not king of the Christians. And he didn't perform a single "miracle". never,at all. And you have four anonymous gospels that cannot even agree on the facts which day your god-man was born or was crucified..From my understanding, Jesus king and high priest of the JEWS would have been totally appalled that a whole new religious ideology had sprung up in his name.The whole pint of this thread is that your god-man is not the first alleged dying and rising god of which there have been many. So stop your whining, and playing victim and accept it for what it is.
Whining?
This is a debate site. Why would you accuse someone of challenging your views as whining? Do you just make these threads just to read like a blog. Even blogsters allow for comments.
I understand the point of your thread, and others and myself have challenged your claims. What you really need to do is argue the actual existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then similarities could be a result of copying from regional myths. But if God exists, your theories are blown out of the water.
The problem though is the claims are wrong because similarities do not really parallel as claimed. If you can accept coincidence to any degree, then you should be careful making claims as being absolute. Do you think the Titanic, or it's sinking was a myth? Do you think either Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy were myths? And where you're also in error is when you claim Christians are made uncomfortable by these claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
The whole Galileo thing was more political than scientific.
How so?
Galileo was also in error - the sun is not stationary and the orbits are not circular. It was ultimately about Galileo being arrogant.
He obviously wasn't in complete error. But that's not really the issue. Wherever he was in error has nothing to do with the Catholic church's view on geocentrism and heliocentrism.
Copernicus was a Catholic priest and when he presented his theory to the Pope it was well received. However, the problem was the same reason that a heliocentric model was rejected by the Greeks. There was no means of seeing a parallax. The Jesuits and universities were not forbidden from investigating a heliocentric model - only that they were not able to say it was true until it had been proven to be so.
There seems to be some Catholic sources that say it's blasphemy to deny a geocentric model because of those given authority to speak as an oracle for God had declared it so.
The Church has always been open to science. Faith & Reason combined have always been at the centre of Catholicism.
Being open to science doesn't seem any different than being open to atmosphere, water, vegetation, etc. I think what you mean is they are open to scientific theories and claims. And that I have a hard time with because I understand the conflict around Galileo's time involved the stars' and planets' reference in scripture. If a scientific theory conflicted with scripture, how could they accept it?
Created:
-->
@DeusVult
For starters, it might help to make a distinction between Catholicism and the Orthodox church who make the same claim. I think it's necessary to do that before going further so we're not burdened by seemingly parallel claims. It's too bad that Orthodox member hasn't been around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
It's kind of tough to figure out where we actually disagree. I agree it's necessary for salvation, but the water itself does not act as a cleansing agent (like soap and water). Some can be saved if they were never baptized depending on circumstances (no availability of water, someone repenting right before passing, a child being younger than the age of accountability, someone mentally handicapped, someone from a remote tribe who's never heard the Gospel but accepts the revelation of Christ through nature, etc.).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Nope.Take artificial contraception. Up until the Lambeth conference in 1930 where the Anglican Church made a minor exception to the use of Artificial contraception, every Christian denomination condemned its use. Now every Christian denomination except for the Catholic Church permits its use.The Catholic Church's official teachings do not change with time.
Well, they eventually acknowledged heliocentrism over geocentrism. And they held to the popular scientific claim of geocentrism because they believed it paralleled scripture. And as I understand it, accepting evolution is optional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Yes, because I hold fast to the Church Jesus Christ established and has 2000 years of consistent teaching.The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are the only ones that even attempt to make that claim. I would argue the Catholic Church is the correct of the two.
Hasn't the Catholic church changed it's views on social issues at times?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
I would greatly disagree. There is no basic unity.Is the Eucharist truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ - or is it only a symbol?Once saved always saved? Or can you lose your salvation?Do you normatively need water baptism?Is divorce permissible?Is abortion permissible?Is contraception permissible?and on and on and on...The denomination cannot even agree on the major elements necessary for salvation, never mind the minor ones
Not all of the doctrines are denominational property. Probably most of them not. There might be denominations that are more likely to hold to certain doctrines, but doctrines like OSAS (and it's opposition) are held by members in a number of denominations. In other words, within one denomination, or single church, there will be members who oppose each other on doctrines like OSAS, tribulation period, etc.
Do you feel you have the correct answer to these various doctrines and social issues?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I don't want to assume you didn't catch this but....
Indeed. There were so many to choose from. Had Christians chosen any other mystery school myth we may have had car stickers proclaiming`Marduk Loves You`< Babylonian Or ` Tammuz Saves`<Sumarian
I believe Dynasty was emphasizing that these women were not virgins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are there really a number of gods who have biographies shockingly similar to that of Jesus of Nazareth? Names that are commonly included in this group of so-called similar gods include Mithras, Dionysus, and Osiris, among others.
This image is one version of this attack on the deity of Christ that is continually circulating online. Some claim that other gods share the attributes of being virgin-born, being born on December 25th (which is not in the Bible, by the way), performing the same kinds of miracles Jesus did, dying (in some cases being crucified), and miraculously resurrecting from the dead.
Let’s examine several of the pagan gods that Christianity is alleged to have plagiarized, as well as three of these ‘shared’ life events: a virgin birth, death, and resurrection.
Mithras
Unless you consider emerging fully grown out of a rock being born of a virgin, this god already has one strike against being similar to Jesus. Certainly, he must have been crucified, right? No. Actually, Mithras didn’t even die–he was believed to be taken to paradise on a chariot when still alive. Since he didn’t die, he didn’t resurrect from the dead. Three strikes, you’re out!
Dionysus
Also known as Bachus, Dionysus doesn’t fare much better. He was said to be conceived out of an affair between Zeus and a mortal woman, Semele. After Zeus’ wife, Hera, found out she tricked the mortal into demanding that Zeus reveal himself in all his glory. He begrudgingly agreed, knowing that this would kill her. He was, however, able to rescue Dionysus and sewed him (or his heart) into his thigh until he was born. This is the claim for his ‘rebirth’–a far cry from the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Osiris
There is no birth story recorded in regards to Osiris. He was eventually killed by his own brother, torn into 14 pieces, and strewn about Egypt. His sister (and wife), Isis, gathered and buried almost all of the pieces. Osiris became the ruler of the underworld as the god of the dead. Some versions of the life of Horus say that Osiris was magically reassembled by Isis and impregnated her before becoming ruler of the underworld. Even if this version is to be preferred, it is worth noting that, unlike Jesus, Osiris would have been brought back to life by another rather than by his own power.
Horus
As mentioned above, most versions of the birth of Horus are the result of a sexual relationship between Osiris and his wife-sister Isis. Some claim that Horus was crucified, but this is not only unsupported by history but is a major anachronism. Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution put into practice thousands of years later. They may as well say that Horus was killed in a motorcycle crash!
Rather than being crucified, most versions of the Horus myth do not have a death recorded at all. In some instances, it was believed that he merged with the sun god, Re, and each sunrise is a symbol of him being reborn each day. Again, this is hardly parallel to the resurrection of Jesus.
What do you mean, refuted? I think it is accepted that these dying and rising gods were all myths, as was the born of virgin son of god Jesus also a myth, except to those who believed them to be true, which in the case of the god man Jesus, happen to be Christians.
But accepted by who?
Basically many people who have fallen for a scam. Again, it's a common trick. It's basically focusing on similarities, and ignoring differences. We could do this with user profiles. Someone could look at our profiles which are very similar (no information), and conclude that you and I are the same.
Why do these sensationalists bother to do this? Maybe not for money (unless they wrote a book), but people readily believe it. The irony is that a number of the people who believe the claims also claim to be skeptics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Its an intresting claim, i never thought christians came up with the idea of God being man or ressurecting. Krishna for example has been a long standing example.I dont believe there is a need to reconcile anything, the idea of a God on earth in a mans image is very common, what is uncommon about Jesus is the idea of God dying for man to save him.The most unique idea christianity introduces is God himself living in a creature of sin. Krishna doesnt do that, buddha doesnt either, you could argue bra-hman introduced himself in creation, but not specifically in man and leaving out others. Shintoism hints on it, but never addresses God as that spirit.So many other religions dont have God being avalible to enter mankind specifically to save him.
Yep! You've nailed it!
The funny part is that a number of people who claim to be skeptics fall for this trick. They're skeptical about Christianity, but apparently don't know that, yes, atheists will lie. When the Zeitgeist movie came out, people fell for their Jesus/Horus scam like 19th century westerners buying up bottles at medicine shows.
In a similar thread, I posted a comparison chart showing uncanny similarities between The Titanic ship, and a fictional ship called the Titan written 14 years earlier. And between Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy. The similarities are probably more profound than the alleged similarities between deities and Jesus.
It's a common trick, and it's shocking to see how many fall for it. Basically, focus on similarities, and ignore the differences. Uncanny parallels could probably be made with Hitler and Napoleon, or Mussolini and Jerry Seinfeld.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Thank you for your note.I am troubled with some of the logic, and hopefully, you can shed light on it. I am not trying to pick a fight, so please see my questions the same as a 4-year-old asking why. The more I learn about Christianity over the last 40 years, the less I know.
Thank you. And you don't come across as one looking for a fight.
There are 23,145 verses in the Old Testament, 7,957 verses in the New Testament. I am confused by the notion of catalyst. Why would one verse be so reverted above others, and others being ignored, or minimized. Are you inadvertently suggesting Christianity is selective worship of the NT?
What I mean by catalyst is that it seems to be a common verse that introduces the Gospel message to one who is not a believer yet. It's not at all that it's more important than any other of the multiple verses. And I don't mean to say it's the only verse used by God in bringing one to belief. People become believers in different ways. For instance, a Messianic Jew would know far more about the Bible than the 21 year old American who never stepped foot in a church service (the age I was when I became a believer). Some believers in the western world can't say when they first believed because of being brought up in the faith, and believed as a child growing up. Since it's God who reveals Himself to an individual, someone could become a believer after reading the Book of Numbers. But the starting point seems to usually to be embracing the simple Gospel message.
Here I see the foundation of Christian belief is not based on philosophy or spirituality, but "love" for JC. So as long as you claim to love JC, you can do whatever you want. You can have a different opinion What happens to the rest of the bible? Does that get ignored? Is that why WWJD is so often cited? So your denomination can do or say whatever it wants provided that you love Jesus. Clearly that is not right, so what am I missing.
If someone says they love Jesus, it might mean a number of things. Like some people might claim to love everybody. And if they consider Jesus' role in history as a human being, they will say they love Jesus because he would be a part of the human race. A part of everybody. Or, they watched Jesus Christ Superstar, thought the character is cool, and loves Jesus as a part of pop-culture. Or, they love all the renown men of wisdom, and see Jesus as one of the great teachers, philosophers, spiritual guides, etc. Someone might love Gandhi. But they don't really know Gandhi, because they never met him. To love Jesus because one knows Jesus is a different matter. And doing what one wants is actually a huge problem for a believer even if they are miles away from any church, or fellow believers. I know because I've done my share of backsliding. It's very painful. The church clergy are not the real spiritual police force keeping believers in check. It's the indwelling Holy Spirit.
So is the Gospel of salvation then your "love of Jesus"? So Judaism would be a cult?
I try to be careful with the term cult because it may have different definitions. And while in Christianity the term has a negative connotation,
it's obviously not always negative (cult movies, cult bands, etc.). I consider Judaism a religion as opposed to a cult. I think the Christian view of the term centers on individuals, often originating from a Gospel church, who leave the church (and faith) and bring a group of followers with them. Like Jim Jones.
But I think what you're getting at is why would we assume practitioners of Judaism do not know the real God? And to that I would say I can't assume that. For one, there are the Messianic Jews I mentioned earlier. And let's say for the sake of argument, we both acknowledge that God exists. Who God actually is will not be based on what or who Jewish people, you, or I think He is. I believe God reveals Himself to individuals, and makes it clear as to who He is. I can't claim Jesus is a combination of Buddha, Vishnu, Thor, Horus, etc., anymore than I can claim CaptainSkeptic is a combination of TradeSecret, EtrnlVw, Stephen, RoderickSpode, etc.
The Bible makes a very bold claim. If anyone believes that He's the Son of the Living God, they will be saved. And if someone seeks Him, they will find him. I believe that if you find God, there won't be any question as to who He is. He will reveal Himself to you as being who He really is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Which is it, All or most?
I think I know what TradeSecret means, but I'll leave this for him to answer.
Who decides "the things the matter?"
And this as well. But in the meantime, something to chew on.
What most denominations have in common is the belief in the pure simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. John 3:16 is one of the catalyst verses that God seems to use in bringing people to Him. The simple belief that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. What will require you to have an open mind about this is to consider the idea that God actually does respond to individuals when they acknowledge/receive the simple message of salvation. If you can consider the possibility that God actually does cause an awareness of His existence to an individual, then the question of what actually matters might be more clear. Basically, it's all about Jesus. One of Billy Graham's testimonies was that when he was in Bible college with students from multiple denominations, he was intrigued by how much they all really had in common. The basic belief in the simple Gospel message, and absolute love for Jesus.
When believers begin to study the Bible, most of the rest of scripture requires attentive study. And inevitably, there will be differences of opinion between genuine believers. There are doctrines that Christians may never come to a universal agreement on. This may be due to lack of study among individual believers, or lack of available historic information, or maybe God simply hides certain things. In fact that's why I think some believers get into trouble trying to make prophetic predictions that don't come true, like Jesus' second coming. They may try to figure things out mathematically things that are not revealed or hidden from us. Things that God doesn't feel is ultimately important. For instance, it might be more important that Christians are unified, like-minded, in spite of having differences.
I think the reference to most denominations allows for the fact that there are fringe groups that may be considered denominations due to having biblical themes in their
statement of faith, but deviate from the simple Gospel of salvation. We would call them cults, even though they may be considered a denomination statistically speaking.
I've done this test before, and something you might try. Go to websites of churches from different denominations and read their statements of faith. I've found that most of them are remarkably similar. Even between Baptists and Pentecostals who traditionally seem to be the most opposite in doctrinal beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
Some similarities within both historical accounts and myths will be inevitable. Like a deity coming back to life from the dead. A particular mythological character for instance may get cut into little pieces who's body parts miraculously come back together bringing the character back to life. If someone wants to make this sound like Jesus' coming back to life, they will throw in the word resurrected to make the mythological character sound like a predecessor to the Gospel account.
Some similarities within historical accounts and mythology will probably inevitably be influenced by another. But we can't assume the first who put them into writing were the originators since the earliest historical accounts and myths were probably given orally.
Johnny tells a real account of something that happened in his life to Jimmy.
Ten years later Jimmy decides to write down that compelling story from Johnny.
A year or two later Johnny decides to write his story down on paper as well.
Someone reads the story from both Johnny's and Jimmy's writings.
The person notices differences in their version.
Who's account is more likely to be the accurate/most accurate one?
Created:
Posted in:
And what about this so called president named John F. Kennedy (who all know to be a fictional president based off of the life of Abraham Lincoln?
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.Both were shot in the head.Lincoln’s secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre.Kennedy’s secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.Both were assassinated by Southerners.Both were succeeded by Southerners.Both successors were named Johnson.Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.Both assassins were known by their three names.Both names are comprised of fifteen letters.Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
Created:
Posted in:
Of course then again maybe the sinking of the Titanic is a myth taken from a novel about a ship called the Titan....about 14 years earlier!
Titanic Titan
Both could sail faster than 20 knots
25 meters longer
Both sank in the North Atlantic
The Titanic sank, and more than half of her 2200 passengers and crew died.
The Titan also sank, and more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned
Both carried the minimum amount of lifeboats
"Unsinkable" sank after hitting an iceberg
Key Similarities
Third screw propellers
Were seen as "unsinkable" ships
She was the largest craft afloat and the greatest of the works of men.
Works cited
The similarities between the Titan and the Titanic
Vol XCIII, No. 311
Both had shortages of life boats
14 years before the Titanic sank
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
+100,000,000
We never seem to see quotations directly from their alleged sources. They pretty much always seem to originate from an author(s) claiming direct quoting from various sources. The quotes comparing Jesus and Horace from the *Egyptian Book of the Dead are complete fabrications. And I'll demand the same proof with Sumerian/Mesopotamian texts.
*Maybe the Zeitgeist con-artist crew were thinking of a book written about The Grateful Dead performing by the Egyptian pyramid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I do not get your joke.My predicament was when i tried to find some Muslims who claim to have vision of god.They did not claim to see alah but jesus.When i tried to search up visions of budah.Jesus popped up.I was wondering if my YouTube search algorithm was screwing with me.In fact i have a very hard time finding any other religion claiming to see god beside Jesus.
I don't think he was joking. If I understand him correctly, I partially agree with him. I think he's referring to a bias that favors white male/non-white female relationships which is promoted in western media. I don't agree that it can be compared to as a bias in relation to religious google searches though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I don't think it's the google search engine giving you trouble.
There's an idea that all religions are the same when it comes to relationship between man and God.
The Muslim god is Allah which means God in Arabic. And is impersonal. You won't see much references about Allah communicating with man because of that. Muslims base their belief primarily on the words of the prophet Mohammed. So you're unlikely to see any references to visions or healing via Allah. The reason why when you type in visions and/or healing with the term Muslim you see references to Jesus is because a number of Muslims have recently claimed to have seen visions of Jesus. But you're not likely to see references to visions of God (Yahweh) either because no man can really see God in our natural state.
Buddha is not God, or a god. It could be argued that he's a deity, but for the most part he's considered an enlightened human. I haven't done it, but you might try typing in visions of Buddhist and Hindu deities. It seems to me that it's more common for a Buddhist or Hindu to see visions of deities as opposed to a creator god. But you might try typing in visions of Vishnu as well and see what you come up with. Buddhists may or may not believe in deities, gods, or a creator. Buddha indicated that they are basically irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
That's interesting, but I'm not sure why you posted this. The topic of the thread is not really about what hell is like.
But for the record, there are numerous claims of going to hell and back by various individuals.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
There was no mention of harm and no mention of "baldy" being harmed by these CHILDREN. there is ONLY name calling as CHILDREN DO!.
A Freudian slip perhaps?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are asking me above where in the verse does it mention "curiosity". And now you want to introduce other words into the text such as - scan -look intently at - look at with pleasure, favor or care !!! It mentions none of these things at all does it. And on another thread you go to pains to tell me that " "There's no need to look at original language and translation, historical back ground,cultural context, etc." but here you are , grasping for the ancient texts like a drowning man in an attempt to excuse and explain away the total lack of mercy shown by "the father".
For crying out loud. I said you do have to look at original language and translation, historical back ground, cultural context, etc.
I may have worded as you don't look at original language and translation, historical back ground, cultural context, etc. But you do need to.
And the bizarre thing of this all is you probably still won't get!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And god killed her for her simple human curiosity. Again your trying to explain away this unnecessary and pointless murder that deprived two children of their mother and a man of his wife. There is absolutely nothing written before or after her death concerning Lot's wife lingering and rubbernecking at the utter disaster behind her. And certainly not a single mention of her"staying behind" to watch the fire works. Look!>>.
Ok, let's look.
Genesis 19:20-30 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A20-30&version=NIV
Where does it say she looked back out of curiosity?
So stop lying and making things up. Why are you attempting to add to and rewrite the scriptures AGAIN!!!? And where is the mercy shown here from "the father"?
The Hebrew word for looked in this verse is nabat.
to scan, i.e. look intently at; by implication to look at with pleasure, favor or care: - behold, cause to behold, consider, look, look down, regard, have respect.
Do these definitions sound like someone who just got curious to see what a city looks like when being destroyed?
And stop telling me I'm lying and making things up.
Again, you are contradicting what the scripture actually says. There was no mention of harm and no mention of "baldy" being harmed by these CHILDREN. there is ONLY name calling as CHILDREN DO!. And young men, or children, it is all besides the point , where was the mercy shown by "the father"..
Give me one good reason why this verse (amongst other verses about killing prophets) shouldn't be considered in light of the text in question?
2 Chronicles 36:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 But they mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the Lord was aroused against his people and there was no remedy.
We do, but we don't all get murdered for nothing or on a whim by a supernatural being that is supposed to be a "merciful father" . Where is the mercy?
We actually don't know if Job's children were innocent because Job was constantly interceding for them in case they should sin. So it seems evident that Job was very concerned about their moral conduct. In light of them having a possible immoral lifestyle, if Job's children were taken to Paradise, wouldn't you consider that merciful?
No, the question - that you have totally avoided on all three occasions above - IS, where is the mercy of "the father".
You mean mercy as in forgiving all sins unconditionally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
One cannot "mumble" the written word. Jesus!! , you really say some of the dumbest things.
Here's a great example of ignoring obvious context. What I said was you come across in your posts as someone who mumbles so others won't understand what you're saying, not that you literally mumble written words. For one, you don't answer questions directly.....if you answer at all. Or, if you don't like the question, you claim it's irrelevant. Or, you just give half answers hoping to get out of a dilemma.
Another ignorant and stupid statement. I highlight these ambiguous biblical contradictory anomalies in the hope that YOU & other apologist will examine them and offer an explanation. But YOU never can> Not without rewriting the scriptures and putting words into the mouths of bible authors. You are, for some reason , of the belief that presetting yourown thoughts and beliefs as fact should somehow suffice. It doesn't. And neither does YOU trying to explain these biblical contradictory anomalies away by talking about things that don't even appear in the scripture to explain them away either.
You don't want an explanation. You want us to look at your supposed contradictions, and agree with you. You're questions are not questions, but statements. Like what Larry King does. I haven't made anything up. Everything I've stated is nothing new and understood by numerous bible scholars and ministers. I actually only scratch the surface at best.
You're comments are actually nothing new either. Even militant atheists who run talk shows and websites, who are supposedly well versed in the Bible do the same thing. I think some of them just go through scriptures, find one's that appear to say something controversial in contemporary terminology, and without any study beyond that make a claim posing questions that are not really questions. And then when someone answers the questions that they don't really want an answer for, they simply claim, like you do, that the person is rewriting the scripture. And that's kind of like mumbling.
But that is exactly what YOU and your fellow apologist often do. You say words such as"kill" does not mean kill when it is spoken by god and you introduce ancient translations into theargument when it suites you to do so, as some kind of evidence to support your ridiculous claims.. You did this also with the words "all" and " everything". You have denied that in the case of god creating"everything", or "all" things it doesn't actually mean everything or all things.
And you're mumbling again. This is not an adequate quotation by the way.
"There's no need to look at original language and translation, historical back ground,cultural context, etc."
I'll add the first sentence to the quotation
"You seem to have this idea that if something appears contradictory there's no further examination needed. There's no need to look at original language and translation, historical back ground, cultural context, etc."
But yes, it is exactly what we do. We look at original language and translation, historical back ground, cultural context, etc. I don't think that's what you're meaning to say though. And no, we do not say kill doesn't mean kill. We do acknowledge that there are different meanings to the word kill. Even today we all understand this. If a pro boxer says he's going to kill his opponent in their upcoming bout, do you think that boxer should be arrested for admitting to a murder plot?
Don't cross thread an old argument. It is strictly against forum rules to do so. You lost that argument once, so save it for that particular thread or start a thread of your own on the matter.
For one thing, this is my thread. So you have permission to address that topic. And, you did a cross thread in your prior statement.
"But that is exactly what YOU and your fellow apologist often do. You say words such as"kill" does not mean kill when it is spoken by god and you introduce ancient translations into the argument when it suites you to do so, as some kind of evidence to support your ridiculous claims.. You did this also with the words "all" and "
everything". You have denied that in the case of god creating"everything", or "all" things it doesn't actually mean everything or all things."
And in one of those cross threads you're referring to (with my permission) I gave you contemporary examples of how all and everything have different meanings. Like "A great time was had by all", and "everything that could go wrong, went wrong". You completely ignored it by the way. Was that because you lost the argument since you seem to think that a non-response means just that?
I asked who was going to kill Cain when according to the bible at that time-"this day" -, there were only three people on the planet? If there were others tell us who they were, where did they come from? And supply the evidence that supports your claim.
I don't need to prove anything to you. You need to prove to me that they were the only three people on the planet. The scriptures indicate that Adam and Eve had numerous children, Cain and Abel had been alive for a good period of time (well into adulthood), and it actually wouldn't be logical for Adam and Eve not to have been sexually active during Cain and Abel's lifetime. And it's fairly clear that his fear was to be murdered by vengeful relatives for murdering Abel. Do you think they waited for Abel's murder to start reproducing all those children?
I've said enough. The BOP is on you.
It is funny . Given that on one hand your op bangs on about life in imprisonment and death for murderers in the 21st century and the we have first murderer on the planet get the rest of the planet to roam around on, raise a family and live to over 700 years. It is ridiculously "funny".
It doesn't matter what you think of Cain's punishment. You don't know what his life was like for 700 years. You're rewriting the story. If Cain couldn't bear the idea of being removed from God's presence, a theme we saw with both King David and Jesus, then who are you to rewrite the event?
And why do you quote only part of my statements, and add your own quotations?
Deary me, there there , poor sole and never mind. He had just murdered his brother out of what appears to be jealousy - a trait inherited from god himself when he created us in his image - no doubt. But was granted his life to roam the world, settle down, build a family and live to over 700 year sold. Yes, far "too much to bare" for anyone I should imagine.Sentenced to 700 years on planet death row! WOW! It must have all been pure torture for the lad. Certainly no mercy shown there was there. Yes it is hilariously funny when read slowly,isn't it.“The LordGod, merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin …” Exodus 34:6-7.
Some of your arguments come across as personal issues as opposed to logical arguments. I know I asked you before, and I have no reason to think you'll answer this time, but here goes.
When you're addressing God, are you addressing him as a real person, or a fictional one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen,Have you seen the pseudo-christian RUNAWAY RoderickSpode? He challenged me to some questions in this thread in his post #26, but in doing so, he has yet to answer my PREVIOUS questions to him in my post #19 regarding our Jesus being a serial killer of innocent children. In other words, he wanted something for nothing, as is the pseudo-christians true MO.If you see him running past your house in trying to hide from Jesus true modus operandi, tell him to get his Satanic ass back into this thread to at least "try" and save face.Thanking you in advance.
BDT,
Any post I made, including the one that was indirect was a result of responses from you to one of my posts. So, I might respond to you at times if you quote me, but I'm not going to get into discussions on the theme you're trying to get me into. For one, I've discussed them in other threads.
If you drop the act, come clean and admit to being an atheist (or non-Christian), then I might. I understand your act is entertaining to a number of people, and certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with spoiling your fun. It's an interesting angle to argue as a militant atheist, pretending to be a Christian (Or as your picture may suggest, a minister). And your bio looks like a parody of the person who says they were a church going believer who one day read the bible, perceived that God is evil from texts in the OT, and became an atheist. Your bio is the same concept with a twist. Instead of becoming an atheist, you remained a believer who preaches the militant atheist view of God being evil, whether that's you in the bio or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
That is perfectly acceptable—and I can live with a more historical, secular and possibly theological perspective on the topic.....and I actually encourage it, seeing that almost all discussions that interpret the text directly, between believers and non-believers, ultimately end up in the same place.Having said that, I also played the Devil’s Advocate and pointed out that God’s punishment regime (aided by his limitless knowledge) was hindered and made limited due to Man’s role in the process.
If I understand you correctly, then yes, you're right. There are texts where instructions were given to the Israelite army, or kings, to carry out justice that were failures due to compromising for corporate and personal advantage and convenience.
For starters, the imagery and perception of eternal punishment in the bible is completely different to the reality of life imprisonment in general. Regardless of whether we live in a society where humans can live eternally or not.But for the sake of argument, let’s temporarily omit all the differences except the notion of time (because you used the perception of time as a potential marker for similarity).In your initial thought experiment, did you assume everyone was an atheist? Because if you didn’t, the notion of eternal vs life imprisonment is different, and life imprisonment for an after-life proponent becomes, regardless of whether he has an ability to live forever or not, a momentary occurrence. In my defence, your scenario alluded to the possibility of death (killing) and therefore this opens up the concept of after-death, which is itself the primary raison d’etre of religious beliefs.
I don't think I gave any thought as to whether or not everyone in the scenario was an atheist. And I may not be entirely sure of the point you're making. But someone who believes in a form of favorable eternal life who is sentenced to life in prison may have a psychological (if not spiritual) advantage over an atheist in the same position who
has no mental hope for life after death. But I don't think it's guaranteed. If an atheist is mentally stronger they may be able to cope better on a day to day basis. But, again I may not be entirely sure of the point you're making.
Paul by the way would be a good example of someone who according to scripture benefited from his belief in eternal life as prison is where he made the claim of being content
in all situations.
Yes. More intense and of a different kind, I would add.For the second part, and to be fair to you, that sounds more like our system, where life imprisonment isn’t necessarily life imprisonment (eternal isn’t necessarily eternal, dependant on the sinners’ subsequent remorse, pardon, etc....).
I would agree. And that's actually an argument I would make when the question arises as to why would anyone need to repent (and believe) in order to be pardoned and become a child of God. (Why doesn't God just save everyone whether they repent/believe or not?) Even amongst human judges a verdict can be influenced by the perceived remorse (or lack thereof) of the person on trial.
I understood the point, but I felt that the question would lead down the rabbit road of ultimately arguing whether God literally has unlimited knowledge or not (or even, and god forbid the discussion leads to that, whether he exists or not). But I could equally argue that, in many instances, having an unlimited data on everything could be to the detrimentof those that wield it. My points still stands that, because God requires his knowledge to be handed down to man (at some point in the process), and that man is inherently fallible, God’s punishment regime must also be fallible.
I guess this goes back to where I stated I wasn't sure of the point you are making. So, I may end up needing some clarification.
As an example, God commanded the Israelites to kill every inhabitant, including livestock of a given enemy nation. Sometimes the command was to spare certain members, like women and children. And the reason behind these specific instructions that we wouldn't employ today was because of God's knowledge of what the outcome would be if they didn't follow specific instructions, or compromise. Of course God's instructions will seem inhumane to many irregardless of God's knowledge of an ultimate outcome. But to give a sensitive example, we probably all agree that the bombing of Hiroshima was absolutely horrible. But....who can really say for sure that it was unnecessary? Who could say for sure what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb?
If this is basically what you're getting at, the judgments of God meant to be carried out by humans as instruments of course only apply on earth. The afterlife judgment is a different matter.
Getting back to the greater intensity of God's judgment, I'll try and give an example.
I think we would agree that if it was proven that someone bullied someone on the internet, causing another to commit suicide (especially if the bully suggested suicide), legal action of some sort should be carried out against the bully. There's a good chance that the person who took their life as a result of being on the receiving end of on-line bullying was bullied before. And probably face to face, like in school. So the suicide may have actually been a result of numerous bullying including suggestions of suicide that piled up over the years in that person's memory instead of one isolated incident on the internet. But, a court room judge will probably not be interested in the contributions others have made, even if he knows about it. The judge's human limitation will restrict his legal action to relegate it to one isolated bully on the internet. So if we look at a human judge as one of God's human instruments, we still have the problem of an ultimately fallible legal system.
However, in God's courtroom in his kingdom, there is no limitations. In the case of the bullied victim, every participant would be known and accounted for. And that could include any of us because we've all said things not really knowing how much harm it might do.
Created: