Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, . ...................you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret .
Do I? It may well be because of something he may have claimed on a thread such as s/he has done on this thread for instance, that I may disagree or agree with.
Or it could be that I may value the importance of his/her input , I mean, with all of those qualifications under his/her belt, who wouldn't want to a qualified and professional opinion.
Or it could well be that someone such has your self has taken it upon themselves to interfere where it wasn't even asked for.
But let me point out this fact for you. The Reverend Tradesecret, for 99.9 % of the time comes onto my threads uninvited , is that stalking or an obsession? . s/he is welcome to do that of course and I couldn't stop him even if I wanted to. But I don't.
So lets look at just my last 14 threads starting from my last and what one could also construe as "an obsession " , shall we.
for instance here > https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters he joined the thread at post 4
Here joined post 28 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5164-messiah-what-did-it-actually-mean-to-be-a-messiah?page=2
Here joined post 35 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5123-the-bible-can-t-cause-anything?page=2
Here joined post 23 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5060-whatever-did-herod-mean
Here joined post 3 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5011-what-did-john-the-baptist-besides-baptise
Here joined post 10 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4969-the-sons-of-god
Here joined post 3 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4948-matthew-27-52-53
here joined post 7 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4911-of-pigs-and-men
Here joined post 5https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4889-the-case-of-john-the-baptist
Here joined post 5 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4864-what-qualifies-one-to-baptise-another
Here joined post 5 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4864-what-qualifies-one-to-baptise-another
joined Here post 53 where he was rather late to the party but come he did https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4518-when-will-they-ever-get-it-right?page=3
Here joined post 66!! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4478-christianity-won-t-be-1-much-longer?page=3
i'll stop there as I think you should get the picture?
But I don't consider this the Reverend Tradesecret has having an obsession with me, would you?
If at all there is an obsessions to be noticed, I think that you have an obsession with her/him - Tradesecrete.
Again you have appeared speaking on his/her behalf as if defending her/him. I hope soon that s/he will wake up to realise that you do her/him no favours when you do this and make her/him appear to be quite retarded and incapable of handling her/his own. When, with all of his/her qualifications , I am sure s/he considers her/him self more than capable to live up to any challenge that comes his or her way.
And you probably didn't know but S/he does tutor and lecture at universities you know, and so is more than prepared for any challenges that come her/his way from all those curious students that are eager to learn from her/his own experiences with god and the scriptures and that she doesn't even charge but accepts a fee from the university. Look >>> "I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them". #20
So you see, s/he doesn't need you or anyone butting in and speaking for her and making comments on her behalf that make her look defenseless and incapable and stupid and silly.
If you were to ever once attempt to interfere on my behalf I would feel quite embarrassed and ask you to stop.
And s/he certainly doesn't need anyone feeding him/her lines and questions to pose to others, that certainly leads to bad things.
This is the last I am going to say on the matter as I won't be party to YOU hijacking and derailing someone else's thread by causing an irreverent, uncalled for and un-necessary argument .
And the author shouldn't stand for your derailing antics either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm usually disparaging about conspiracy theories. But there just seems to be something odd about all the attention being given to yet another seasonal respiratory virus, that typically most people will recover from quickly and some older and more vulnerable people may die as a result of.What's different this time around?
I keep hearing the phrases " the great reset" and " the new normal" coming from MSM and some world leaders, Vic. Although there has been a little backpedaling on both and I am not hearing this as often than I was at the beginning of this excuse to entomb us in our homes until Easter at least when we will be sprung from our graves some time between the 5th and the 12th of April and emerge into the new normal like Noah from the Ark into new normal, new world and a new age.
And maybe some religious freak will even suggest setting the clock back to the year 0?
You heard it here first Vic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I also preach about heaven, when it comes up in the text. But I do not preach about heaven as a means to try and say - look how cool it is - you should come there.
What do you actually say when you preach/ teach about heaven. Reverend? I ask because the word is mentioned in the New Testament over two hundred times but says very little about this place other than call it "my fathers house" and lots of mansions.
So, what do you preach about it? What goes on there? Where is it actually? what does one actually do for all eternity? I believe one of the most intriguing and puzzleing references to "heaven" is the coming and going of beings on a ladder. But I could have that mistaken for something else.
And to keep with the question in the OP It all seems very contradictory that we have our sins washed away if we repent and are baptised and the bible doubles down on this by telling us Jesus, gods only son and also god at the same time himself was sacrificed and died and that too saved us from our sins. So why is anyone going to hell?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Definitely not your best point there buddy
Did you get the point, edge?
The point is that s/he insists that s/he hadn't even called Lot and his family ".innocent" and in the same sentence, tells me that I am "just making stuff up" about what she didn't say. So s/he's calling me a liar not to mention accusing me of lying about him/her.
Look >>
Tradesecret wrote: Did I call Lot and his family innocent? You just make stuff up.#26
But even for all his/her claims, s/he had forgot what she had said previous when she scrambled this beauty out as an EXAMPLE, of "gods love and mercy" shown to Lot and his "innocent"" family.
Tradesecret wrote: "How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example -#11
So, do you see my point now, edge.
S/he had contradicted her/himself, lied about me and shown her/himself - again - to be a complete buffoon.
Since I pointed out his/her glaring great contradictory clanger, s/he hasn't been back to explain her/him self . It is likely that s/he understands that to offer the excuse that " I forgot and didn't remember" wouldn't work this time around no more than it did the first. And him/her being a lawyer too.
Created:
Posted in:
I will call you on it,
Call away sunshine. I have nothing to hide from. It is you and your buddy that has brought "rape and proactive dress codes" into the mix.
Look>.
I argued that if words can cause homophobia then a woman wearing provocative clothing causes men to rape. This is what your argument proves and you know I am right".
It was you added the suggestion females weren't safe and words to the effect that while Brother D Thomas is a member here they/ women can only expect ' insulting, abusive, or highly critical language' .<<<<<<<<<<<<< that, so you know is what "invective" actually means.
here you are princess, all your own doing>>>
Seeee^^^^^ all you.
Just so you know, being female is not an inferior state. There is absolutely nothing wrong or less about being female.
It was you that first suggested "females " were some how "inferior" and couldn't handle themselves of a forum and appears to be mocking them. Here you go>>>
It's already hard enough to get female members without cave men using the word "woman" as an invective.
That is to say:
' insulting, abusive, or highly critical language' .<<<<<<<<<<<<< that, so you know is what "invective" actually means.
Why do YOU say it so hard enough for females on this forum suggesting that isn't just as hard for males? This indicates that YOU believe them to be inferior . Not me. Why do you feel females need protecting and shielding from Brother D Thomas?
"resumed pattern of sexual harassment"..Did not once think of the trauma that your words were causing your victim , it doesn't look like it does it?
It appears that it is you than has the problem with women/females. Not me, sunshine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
@Tradesecret wrote:My logic is not that a lot of people have agreed therefore it must be right. It is that the default position is in place for a reason, and just because someone comes along who disagrees with it - does not mean that suddenly the tradition has to prove itself. Why should the newcomer get the right to question the tradition without first putting up their reasons for why the tradition should be challenged? #15
Ah yes, that old chestnut - " Why are you asking me this question" - in response to your own question posed first.
This is a cowards response to a question posed to them and seriously, one would think that person such as say, a Minister or a Chaplin qualified to lecture and teach students and a person that has been fully trained and tutored and claims to have " studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church" #91 would quite welcome questions from " a newcomer" wouldn't' you? And they usually do, until the questions become sticky and tricky, awkward and problematic and then they start screaming "foul" and start demanding the you answer their questions first before answering the initial question that you have posed.
But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. #20
This is not to mention also : "I study the original languages, translate them to English", #25
A lawyer, with clients and court cases, a Pastor with parishioner to administer to, a Chaplin that counsels, a tutor with students to lecture to at universities. And a translator of ancient languages. The qualified talents just don't stop coming. I wonder what her/his hidden talents are!?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Burden of Proof: How it WorksIn civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact.It's a fundamental principle.Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first,before the defendant.It'snot for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant.The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.To satisfy the burden of proof:
- the party with the burden of proof
- must prove the alleged fact
- to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof. https://hallellis.co.uk/burden-proof-balance-probabilities/#:~:text=Burden%20of%20Proof%3A%20How%20it,%2D%20first%2C%20before%20the%20defendant.
- Are you sure that your a lawyer! Reverend?
Tradesecrete wrote: Now if we can show which court room we are in - let us begin. Are we in the criminal or the civil court room? but we are in not in such court rooms, are we? We are in a courtroom of public opinion. What are the rules here?
This didn't stop you introducing criminal law and legal advice into a thread when I asked you a simple yes or no biblical question, now did it Reverend? Would you like reminding;
Tradesecrete wrote: #15Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers.
Suited you then didn't it, Reverend. And yes , if you prefer, we are in a court opinion so to say to anyone " “ who are you to question this old belief” is simply YOU attempting to gain the high ground and wield your imagined authority on the subject matter.
What are the rules here?
Deary me. Don't you know Reverend lawyer? Facts & Proof are the rules. Like the FACTS & Proof of law written and universally accepted law that I have shown you in my quote that states actual FACTS about where the Burden of Proof actually lays and not what ones “ attitude to is" towards where the Burden of Proof lays. You can't simply dismiss facts because they don't agree with you, Reverend. Like me, facts don't care about your feelings, Reverend.
Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong.
Even if that is true, it still doesn't alter the fact, Reverend, that YOU make the claim that god is real, that he created everything on the planet and in the universe and that every word in the holy scriptures were as you say " breathed by god himself". PROVE IT!
IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong.
I know it is your job to defend and prove your belief and your position and your claim that god exists .
I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant.
Well let me tell you lawyer, that the only complaint I have with YOU and Christians , is that you can never prove you case.
They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert.
Well I don't. I only ask you to adress what it is that YOU claim .
I only ask that you support and prove your claims. But you don't have to. No one is forcing you. You make the choice either to try to defend your "god breathed" scriptures or simply ignore. There is one or two other options that are open to you but you Christians let your pride stop you. And YOU in particular, let not just your pride, but your absolute arrogance and ignorance . But I suggest that you should never come to the table empty handed as you do. You have shown me that you know very little about these scriptures above what you have been taught to " pass on" by others. As you freely admit here >>>>.
Tradesecrete wrote: I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i havereceived. I do not have an agenda. I really don't. #20
Indeed, which as to be one of your most contradictory statements that you have ever made on the forum. Why ? Because you do have an agenda, or have you forgot what your god commanded you to do? Here's a reminder for you Pastor, Mark 16:15 You are a minister aren't you and a Pastor? you claim you are here>>
Butin my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoralcare. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with properaccreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defenceforces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. #20
It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist.
Well in my particular case I simply read, scrutinize and question the scriptures. I don't care if or not there is a god. I don't care that Jesus believed he was dying for me (if he died at all). . I didn't ask him to sacrifice himself and from what I have read, he didn't want to either. And I like to take responsibility for my own sins and mistakes, and the thought of someone taking the blame or responsibility for something that I did , frankly appalls me, Reverend, doesn't it you?
I treat these ancient texts as a history, a very bad and flawed history.
It is the atheist who is always making a complaint. IT is the atheist who is always trying to prosecute the case.
You are not a lawyer at all are you?
There are similarities in court room legal jargon and debating -
Well done! And do you know what some of those "similarities" are , Reverend? FACTS! and PROOF! Asking someone "who do they think they are" and wielding some imagined authority around like some god given mantel simply does not amount to facts or proof. Even if you do claim to be Chaplin and a Pastor and a lawyer.#20
in relation to tradition and the default position is not changed
Then you are just ignoring the facts which doesn't surprise me at all, you do it constantly. I don't care about YOUR DEFAULT POSITION! . And neither would a fkn Judge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Unless you accept that provocative clothing - a much more visible act than passive words in a book can cause men to rape girls - then your argument for the bible is invalid.I don't accept that. And I suggest you stop letting others feed you replies, they are making you look stupid and illiterate, Reverend. Which I know you are not, well, not entirely.And I am afraid this shows you to be lacking especially for a wo/man that uses words for a living in discovering the truth in a court of Law . You are a lawyer aren't you ? You tell us you are here.#20And if you cannot tell the difference between physical and literal causes, I am going to give you a hint. How is it that you cry scream `foul ' when you take my words - according to you - to have somehow "humiliated" you and take them to be " mocking you " and take them as a direct "attack" on your character? Tell me HOW?There is a clue there for you Reverend. And here's another, you are looking for one word that makes all the difference my lawyer friend . I would hate to have to " humiliate" you by pointing out the obvious for you..You must be absolutely shite in that court room, Reverend.Passive words verses active provocation.
All words do that not just passive one's . And lets not lose track here, we are talking WRITTEN words. written words that you say " words are just words" . #45 And "The Bible is a book. It can't cause anything",#3
I have to wonder why your god Jesus even bothered to remind you that " it is written", hundreds of times in the bible.
Marvellous I find it that you can say that passive words can cause people to be provoked and activated" but are reluctant to admit that aggressive words
but here you are, only now you are agreeing that words are not "just words" but can cause "active provocation" . Not to mention that you have also finally agreed that they are not "just words" but are "powerful and influential and provocative".
And stop trying to play down the severity of the words that you have chosen to use.
If the active and visible provocation does not CAUSE - then it goes without saying that the passive words do not cause.
STOP!!! with your nonsense!!!!! you have climbed down somewhat from your "words are just words and can't cause anything" and are now admitting that they are not JUST words. You admit NOW that they are ALSO powerful, influential & and provocative". Now that is far removed from your initial stance that " words just being words and can't cause anything", isn't it Reverend?
I said your argument proves too much.
My argument that words DO cause things and DO cause people to act and are not "just words that cannot cause anything" as you put it and believe.
And if you cannot tell the difference between physical and literal causes, I am going to give you a hint. How is it that you cry scream `foul ' when you take my words - according to you - to have somehow "humiliated" you and take them to be " mocking you " and take them as a direct "attack" on your character? Tell me HOW?There is a clue there for you Reverend. And here's another, you are looking for one word that makes all the difference my lawyer friend . I would hate to have to " humiliate" you by pointing out the obvious for you..
Why ever have you done that? It should be easy for a man of Law and that great glaring clue I gave you? Just say of you don't know and I will point the word out to you our Lawyer fiend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
u will find that it is your best buddy talking "rape of women"...I said nothing about rape.
But your best new buddy has;
Look>.
I argued that if words can cause homophobia then a woman wearing provocative clothing causes men to rape. This is what your argument proves and you know I am right".
"and you know I am right" is what s/he adds. well no s/he is not right and s/he should know better being a lawyer that deals in words, sentences, paragraphs
for a living.. and you are just far to ignorant to see trouble you are creating for Tradesecrete with your own words.
And YOU with your words have suggested that this board is not a safe environment for women haven't you?
This is what you have wrote;
ethang5, wrote: if the board is ever going to be a safe and enjoyable place for females.#75
You didn't stop there because you never do know when to stop and you added words to the effect that while Brother D Thomas is a member here they/ women can only expect ' insulting, abusive, or highly critical language' .<<<<<<<<<<<<< that, so you know is what "invective" actually means.
But there again, why would anyone consider a forum full of written words to an unsafe place for women. Because I have lost count of how many times your friend and Lawyer Tradesecrete has informed us that " words are just words and can't cause anything " at all.
S/he says the same about the scriptures Look>> "The Bible is a book. It can't cause anything",#3 <<<A lawyer saying this. A lawyer that uses written words to save her defendants from prison or hefty fines and penalties that are written into law for offenders that break the WRITTEN law!
How many times does your god and or scripture say the words "BECAUSE IT IS WRITEN"!!!?????
But we know that just 40 words from just two verses in the bible Jhn 7:16 - Jhn 7:17" , caused you to have an epiphany of sorts and caused you believe that the bible was the word of god himself, didn't it. #29.
Look is all s/he had to do was admit at the beginning that s/he made a thoughtless throwaway comment on the hoof and that would have been the end of it.
But even now, s/he is simply being stubborn or more likely too arrogant to even attempt what I posed above. Even now s/he is clinging on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Exactly!! That’s what I was trying to sy and the only thing I got back was “well who are you to question this old belief”
“ who are you to question this old belief” . <<<<, who has actually said that to you, do you have a post# or link? It sounds like some jumped up pen pushing know-it - all that believes him/herself to be above everyone else and only s/he he is qualified to talk and dictate on such matters.
Don't stand for it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Too tough for you are they? Those questions raised by yet another silly and pointless thread created by you/
You own scriptures speak of UFO's. But you wouldn't know that would you. You have never got past Dick & Dora red book one. But take some comfort from the fact that ,
that still puts you ahead of ethang5.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Mod team, if the board is ever going to be a safe and enjoyable place for females, we should discourage this sort of behavior. It's already hard enough to get female members without cave men using the word "woman" as an invective.
I think you will find that it is your best buddy talking "rape of women" and conflating the written word and what it causes to the actual live harm that a woman could suffer "caused" by the way woman decides to dress to paraphrase here>>>. ` women ask to be raped by dressing proactive ' and other physical abuse of women. So if you want to flag her/him for these posts, you be my guest; here you go #55 #60 Tradesecret.
I argued that if words can cause homophobia then a woman wearing provocative clothing causes men to rape. This is what your argument proves and you know I am right".
Well no. Because I know s/hes wrong.
It is a silly comparison to make especially for a criminal lawyer. But this is simple desperation to be right.
So you go ahead and flag her/him. I am sure s/he'll thank you for it.
And I suggest any Moderator reading here should read the whole thread . Or at least from post #35 Tradesecret. Thank you
Created:
Posted in:
Another beautiful example of god love and grace.
Human curiosity given to us by God
1 Samuel 6:19
But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the Lord. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them.
The patience afforded to his flawed and fallible human creations by god knows no bounds.
It bring a lump to the throat and a shiver down the spine at this show of tenderness and care towards his creation.
His love and grace for the females of his creation also knows no bounds either:
Exodus 21:7-8 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.
Indeed we were so so precious and important to god our creator that he sent his ONLY son to save us, while he was butchering us by the millions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I will say that I do not believe for a moment that they are interplanetary travelers.
Why not? That ladder known as Jacobs reached from somewhere down to earth, did it not? And "witnesses" seen beings going up and coming down down So where were these beings "descending" from? And acceding to?
And a UFO is what it actaully says it is- an object that flies but as of yet it is unidentified by man.
.
These UFOs should not have the ability to do what they have been in some cases recorded to do.
But they do according to very good eyewitness accounts.
The phenomena defies natural science
As does bringing back to life a corpse of a dead man that has been stinking and rotting for days on end, or years? The difference is that we actually have eyewitness accounts of how these UFO's moving in phenomenal ways. And of the two I know which one sounds more likely.
The idea that they would bother to come from far off distance planets seems unlikely to a lot of folk (like myself).
The idea that your god even bothered to create anything - at all - in the first place is my biggest question ? Are you going to give it a go? I doubt it.
And the way they seem to disappear seems to suggest to a lot of people that these are beings that can travel in and out of our dimension.
Don't you mean our air space.
Feel free to give a more natural explanation if you can,[................]there's potential life outside of our natural environment.
It would be rather ignorant and arrogant of any 21st century person to dismiss the possibility that there could be life on other planets and in other solar systems. But there again, I have found most Christians to be ignorant and arrogant and dismissive to the possibility even though their own scriptures mention the decent of other beings and craft actually descending to earth from the sky or " heaven". And not surprisingly so do many other ancient civilisations.
If one can accept this, how about an actual creator of our universe
You are conflating two things. Tell us why do these visiting beings also have to be the creators of anything.
interacting within our environment from somewhere similar to a parallel..............
They could interact without also being creators of the universe and everything in it..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not going to just assume that something is proved or fact - base don statistics, probability, assumptions or best guess. #15
Except when it fits your narrative to do so. And I am not going to ever forget you said that^^^^^^^^^!.
My attitude to B[urden] of P[roof] is not actually the person who asserts must do so
You tell us here that you are a criminal Lawyer #20. Are you sure?
And what YOUR “ attitude to is" to where the B of P lays, don't mean jack !!!! It is what the accepted law says it is and not what your "attitude to it is".
And attempting to manipulate the word “assert” = claim hasn't gone UN-noticed by me. . You make the claim or “assert” the existence of an all creator god .The lawful universally accepted (“attitude”) is that the Burden of Proof is on s/he that makes the claim.
I have never seen or heard of a civil case or criminal trial where the defendant has to prove her or his innocence. EVER! The burden of proof lays with his accusers or the complainant.
Do you let your clients enter a court room and tell them that they have to prove their own innocence!!!? Have you forgot that your "clients" that you "always advised never to answer a yes or no question" don't even have to testify in their own fk trials!!!!
"Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers." #15
Burden of Proof: How it Works
In civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact.
It's a fundamental principle.
Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first,before the defendant.
It'snot for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant.
The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.
To satisfy the burden of proof:
- the party with the burden of proof
- must prove the alleged fact
- to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof.
Are you sure that your a lawyer! Reverend?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Does Christianity present salvation as a whole, in the afterlife, or are Christians saved while being saved?
Christians can never make their minds up when it comes what they call to being "saved".
For instance, when the subject of "innocent" children being killed for no reason by god or anyone else, Christians stampede to tell us that the children "weren't innocent" as we are all sinful because our ancestor/s had listened to a snake instead of god.
Ok let's accept that on the face of it, for now.
But then along comes John the Baptist, seemingly without any authority, teaching people to pray going around baptising others in a ritual that scriptures says washes away our sins as long as we repent and believe Example:
Mark 1:4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
and to make this clear Paul in says the same in ( Acts 22:16)
as does Peter (Acts 2:38)
and Lukes gospel (Luke 3:3)
So here we now are, according to the above, cleansed of our sins , all's forgiven all back in the state of innocents. It must have felt like they had been born all over again to those sinners. Nice and clean just out the wrapper, lovely, brilliant and absolute smashing we are all going to heaven or paradise, take your pick.
But then, along comes Jesus/ God and son of himself. He speaks a few bias and contradictory parables, tell us to give all our hard earned worldly goods to the poor while the bible tells us the end is nigh (which one has to wonder how giving away one's worldly goods benefits the poor if the end is just around the corner) and love him/god and one another and THEN! Christians tell us that - after being beaten to within to inches of his life , he suffered the most HORRIFIC execution ever dreamed up by man AND - HE - DIED!?
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son [ that would be giving himself as ransom for himself], that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
WHY? Well you may well ask , Lit. By all accounts it was to "save us from our sins" that we didn't even have ! That is if we are to believe Mark 1:4 & Peter (Acts 2:38) & (Luke 3:3) & John 3:16 & ( Acts 22:16)
What is anyone to make of this garbled nonsense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@Utanity wrote; No many people can get salvation but they must be true to the true god and they get picked on by the true God then you cant go back so thats when you have salvation and you are a true christian .Can you explain that a little better. I am pretty dumb and don't understand.
I see you let the edit clock runout on you again there , Reverend
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Unless you accept that provocative clothing - a much more visible act than passive words in a book can cause men to rape girls - then your argument for the bible is invalid.
I don't accept that. And I suggest you stop letting others feed you replies, they are making you look stupid and illiterate, Reverend. Which I know you are not, well, not entirely.
And I am afraid this shows you to be lacking especially for a wo/man that uses words for a living in discovering the truth in a court of Law . You are a lawyer aren't you ? You tell us you are here.#20
And if you cannot tell the difference between physical and literal causes, I am going to give you a hint. How is it that you cry scream `foul ' when you take my words - according to you - to have somehow "humiliated" you and take them to be " mocking you " and take them as a direct "attack" on your character? Tell me HOW?
There is a clue there for you Reverend. And here's another, you are looking for one word that makes all the difference my lawyer friend . I would hate to have to " humiliate" you by pointing out the obvious for you..
You must be absolutely shite in that court room, Reverend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I know I am preaching to the choir on this one, but Tradesecret accusing you of said accusations shown above is the blatant FACT that "he/she" cannot discuss the topic with you anymore because they have been logically proved wrong by you, therefore to take the light of this fact off of them, they accuse you of wrongdoing as shown. It's an old pseudo-christian ruse to try and save what face Tradesecret has left within this forum.
Well Brother. I suppose it hasn't gone un-noticed by you that other great clanger dropped above by the Reverend Tradesecrete because I know no much gets past you.
Tradesecret wrote: Did I call Lot and his family innocent? You just make stuff up.#26Yes!!!!!You really cannot remember your own shite. And you, a lawyer too, with your own words on the screen right in front of you. LOOOOOK here AGAIN!!!!>>>> second from bottom line;Tradesecret wrote: "How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example -#11
So here S/he is Brother, holding up for me an example of god protecting Lot and his family. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ AND CALLING THEM INNOCENT!!!! Not to mention holding up for me her/his own glaring balls up while telling me that I "just make stuff up"!
"Just make stuff up"?
Would you call that a legal term , Brother? Doesn't sound very lawyerly law school to me I must say. Invented or concocted, fabricate or contrived would be the language I would use if I were a fully trained & qualified lawyer but "just make stuff up" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As things stand "Christianity" is just a club
To beat arrogant Christians over the head with when they deny even their own bibles facts.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well
Isn't Muhammad Ali ( the greatest athlete of his time) quoted somewhere as saying after his fight in Zaire ( Democratic Republic of Congo) " thank God granddaddy got on that boat" ? I believe he meant his white Irish granddaddy, that married a freed slave. I think I read somewhere that in fact his granddaddy was a plantation owner, I can't remember if he also had slaves.
It seems such a grateful and thankful thing to say about his white ancestor, doesn't it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And it caused you great embarrassment when I posted 2 Peter 2:7 in response to you giving us your vivid and pretty deep almost a psychological profile of Lot as a person, especially his nature. #16I was not deeply embarrassed.
Oh good. I should have said you are an embarrassment to those "academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church, not to mention your own students. OK. So you just feel "attacked" or "humiliated" or "mocked", but cannot explain why after may request for you to explain yourself.
And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul.Backpaddling at its best!Do you EVER think before you post, Reverend? That is most vile attempt at defending the indefeasible that I have ever read. I notice that your pathetic defence of Lot comes only now and comes ONLY AFTER it was pointed out to you that Lot was "righteous" : 2 Peter 2:7It is not backpedaling. I made my points in my first post.
Your detailed psychological profile of Lot didn't included a single word of praise, indeed you say Lot wasn't even "righteous". That word alone would have jogged the memory of any GOOD fully trained and qualified lawyer, I'm sure. . and I picked it apart and scrutinised it here: #16. It wasn't until (according to you) that I "humiliated you" when I showed you : 2 Peter 2:7 that you scrambled to recover with the most vile attempt at defending the indefeasible that I have ever read. Do you remember your detailed psychological profile?
I can't seem to recall anywhere in the Bible where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so.From the beginning - he was in it for himself. Selfish and loyal only to himself. I would suggest that what he does in this story - is exactly making that point.He wanted to live - in his own way and would do anything to get there.He had no loyalty to his daughters.I take the view that he was incestuous, depraved, immoral.I am not sure if you read the story or not?I am not sure if you read the story or not?can you read or not?
So above ^^^ is your qualified and professional detailed psychological profile of LOT; a man that you have only ever read about in a short story. You even went so far as to tell us that in your qualified opinion as a Pastor and a Chaplin that Lot wasn't "righteous", see your 1st line above in your quote.
I recall thanking you
Yes you did, and that was AFTER your two know-it-all sarcastic posts where you thought you was being so so fkn clever. here #4 & #5 asking me if I could read and If I had actually read the story ( you was mocking & patronising me in your attempt you recover from your "humiliation" ) from your Pastor's pedestal. And I loved it. I have met many like you before Reverend. Your type hate being shown up to be the bible ignorant fools that you are.... especially in public. You lot just never expect to be challenged and your words scrutinized and tested. Indeedit was much more simpler in past times of ignorance and fear,when Chaplains, Pastors Priests faced less doubt and opposition to totally control apersons daily life not to mention to enable them to extort ones hardearned earthly goods.
Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?[A] I could maybe accept your point if you can explain to me, why it was necessary to destroy some One & half million inhabitants of four or five cities that must have included thousands of innocent babies and children under the age of 10 to save this incestuous family of two adults and just the two of their daughters what had his other girls done to be burned to death with fire and brimstone, you cannot say can you!???Answering a question with another question.
Not nice I know. In fact it is probably the most ignorant way to conduct a discussion. Did I mention I learned that terrible habit from you? No? Well I did.
If Peter is prepared to call Lot righteous, and to further elaborate on his emotional state in Sodom as to being tortured in his soul day and night - then it provides me with a new and profound respect for Lot that I had glossed over in the past #9 TradesecretAnd there it is. Clear evidence confirming my own beliefs concerning the practice of religious teachers including Ministers and Pastors that they indeed do "gloss over" these problematic verses and do steer their students and parishioners away from them because of the difficulty in explaining them away.It is only evidence that I had glossed over Lot. Not evidence for anyone else. Another clear example of misrepresentation by Stephen.
See post #7
How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an exampleI'll take that in two parts, Reverend.Example of what?See now again Reverend, you are using the same old bullshit as ALL Christians do when caught on the backfoot. Would you like a recent example of you (as do other Christians) driving home the fact according to you and the bible that "NO ONE is innocent"?You are saying here in one breath that god was " protecting & saving Lot & his innocent family" yet in the many, many breaths before today you cannot wait to tell us that we are all sinners and "even children die because they are sinners" and that "no one is innocent", when it suits your narrative. You do love your dilemmas don't you, Reverend.Did I call Lot and his family innocent? You just make stuff up.
Yes!!!!!You really cannot remember your own shite. And you, a lawyer too, with your own words on the screen right in front of you. LOOOOOK here AGAIN!!!!>>>> second from bottom line;
[A] Tradesecret wrote: "How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example -#11
So here YOU are holding up for me a example of god protecting Lot and his family. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ AND CALLING THEM INNOCENT!!!!
[B] So can you now can explain to me, why it was necessary to destroy some One & half million inhabitants of four or five cities that must have included thousands of innocent babies and children under the age of 10 to save this incestuous family of two adults and just the two of their daughters what had his other girls done to be burned to death with fire and brimstone, you cannot say can you!???
I seem to recall that I called Lot selfish and self interested. Hardly innocent.
I agree but innocent you did call them, and held them up as an example of god protecting the "innocent". See [A] above. What a glaring contradiction, Reverend.
Your insipid response above just reveals you do not understand grace and mercy.
Maybe you can help me with that by explaining [B] above for me, Reverend?
How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example - and rather than saying - Well done God, you still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil.
Look again,^^^^^^^^^^^^ you have repeated your shining example of God protecting the " innocent". I did warn you Reverend, to be careful what you write on a public forum that leaves you less than ten minutes to edit.
You still stick your finger up and say even its righteous people are evilI am, AS DID YOU until it was revealed out to you BY ME, that Lot was "righteous" >>>>2 Peter 2:7 . OR have you so soon, forgotten your own psychological profile of LOT that you meticulously put together for us and BEFORE my revelation ? Here it is , written forever and I have broken it down for all our readers #16, But I am sure you would rather forget this embarrassment now and have your friends bury it under plies of their bullshit to save your sorry arseI have indicated that I don't have a high opinion of Lot.
You did, and before I even had the chance to tell you that St Peter and God tells us that Lot was "righteous". And you went further Reverend. You really went to town on this "innocent" and "righteous man" Lot here> #4 & #5 and I have broken down your psychological profile of the man that you have only read about in a short story, for all our readers here #16,
He [Lot] is a terrible role model. He is a sinner and selfish.
Why? What had he done that was sinful? Before this terrible day.
God redeemed him [lot] - not because he deserved it. But because he showed grace and mercy.
This was while he was sentencing 1500000 citizens to their deaths was it? Where thousands had to have been innocent children under the age of 10?
Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?Why is that YOU,after many requests for you to create a thread showing your god in a more better and positive light, never do so?I think I show God in good light on every occasion.
Not that I have noticed. And just because you think that will not make it true. So stop being cowardly Reverend, and create your thread highlighting of what you believes shows god in a better and positive light
Your continual attacks on me - and my character are attacks.
So you keep saying on almost every thread (especially my own threads) just lately, but when I ask you how I am "attacking" you or "humiliating" or "mocking" you, you can never say why or how my words cause you to feel your being "attacked" or "humiliated" or "mocked" . So that leaves me only to believe they these are things that only exist in your own mind. But how they got there, even I don't know?
I can't think of any part where you have tarnished his goodness. In fact it would surprise me if you could.
I agree. That's because God does a very good job than I ever could at tarnishing his own reputation.
just a few examples here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
My bad, I didn't read all the way through. Didn't realize this was satire
Did I not mention Gods display of real love and grace when a mother of 4 children was taken from her brood for nothing more than curiosity ?
.
Did I not mention Gods love and grace when one of his servants simply stretched out an arm to steady Gods own sacred artifact in a act of sheer selflessness God showed his love and grace by killing this heroic servant?
Please feel free add your own examples of Gods display of love and grace not to mention sheer affection for his most special creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Plenty of kids ask "how do you know?" or "why?" a million times.
Indeed and many have had the shit beaten out of them for asking prickly awkward questions about religion, the bible and god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do children start out atheist?
What a absolute stupid arse of a question. You really cannot help yourself can you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't think Job Is a good example of God's love and grace. I mean the man got tortured to within an inch of his life and all of his children killed because God made a bet.
I must have missed that part. Do you mean where all his servants and cattle and sheep are killed and his house is brought crashing down too, apart from those ten dead children that I mentioned that were murdered by god that has unlimited power over everything in the universe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Getting back to the initial question, if I happen not to accept the authority of 2 Peters (or even 1 of them) then is your initial concern dealt with -- that Lot wasn't especially righteous so his behavior, culturally acceptable though morally reprehensible, need not be defended? Thanks.
Well Rosi, the question was posed to the Christian audience here that do have to accept 2 Peter 2:7 and for obvious reasons. This is why we can witness above the actions of Reverend Tradesecret's sudden change of stance and opinion concerning Lot and his "righteousness"... for what good S/he thinks it has done..
The question:
Stephen asked: One simply has to ask , why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped to save their skin ? And where was god to reprimand Lot?
Under any other circumstances I would simply have put this episode down to the ` acceptable ' cultural ancient practices of the age and regardless of which god one was supposed to be loyal to. I say this because as I mention above, it comes across as casual - "the norm" and there was no protest or outcry from the two men or from the girls mother. This is what I wrote:
"It is as if this was the normal practice for a father to offer his little girls when he or his god sent guests are in danger."#1
I intentionally suggested this above myself knowing that the Reverend would try to incorporate it in trying to excuse the behaviour of those involved and explain it away, and sweet as nut , lo & behold, once I pointed out that Lot was indeed "righteous" . I got this _ "Perhaps as a middle eastern culture - it was more shameful for guests in the house to be violated than for one's own family?" #9 . Well I don't have to ask you to view both quote side by side do I, Rosi.?
But to address your point. Remove Lots "righteousness" according to the Christian NT 2 Peter 2:7 , then I can put it down to fact that Lot was the head of this ancient household and could do what ever he believed to be right. So if the story has any truth to it at all, then the proposal must have been acceptable not only to Lot, but the two men, the mother and to their God as some kind of payment for safe passage. And maybe had those towns folk at the door had been heterosexual, all would have passed uneventful and been accepted without incident.
In my honest opinion, this biblical episode is a religious tale wrapped in a real natural disaster. I have read about the aftermath of Sodom Gomorrah and I can tell you, to me it reads like the aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And no loving god would do this intentionally for any reason. But still, that is only my open and honest opinion Rosi.
Created:
Posted in:
In no particular order of gravitas.
(1) The story of Gods faithful obedient servant Job.
With having unlimited power over everything in the universe, God says to Satan -
"And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” Job 2:3
The story of Job has to be among the saddest example of God's Love and Grace in these "god breathed" scriptures. God sanctions the death of all of Jobs 10 children but as we can see above, God is not happy having to do this "without any reason". One can become quite weepy once we realise that it is Gods love and grace that is clearly shining through showing us how cheap life really is to him.
(2) The right to worship by the love and grace of God at any cost.
O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" Psalm 137:8–9 .
This appears to be a ` deary me never mind ' comment from God who was merely saying how regrettable it is that even babies become collateral damage during conflict. But is also saying those that believe in him "should be happy-or blessed — to kill innocent babies if they keep you from worshiping him. How lovingly gracious of god to put their concerns of worship & his own vanity before those of innocent babies.
(3) Cannibalism enforced by God.
"And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." Leviticus 26:27–29
This appears to be one of those - `you keep forgetting me, what about me' -tantrums from God. He is feeling a bit left out of the picture so, as punishment, he threatens his them "chosen people, Israel" that he will cause them to eat their own children. The love and grace that God shows in this verse is enough to bring tears to ones eyes.
(4) The vow of a General and a virgin for God .
"And[general] Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: 'If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.' . . . When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! . . . After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed." Judges 11:30–39
This is really a true show of loyalty and devotion to God and a story of how one should keep their promises made to a loving and gracious God . and of course like all biblical stories of gods love grace this virgin wasn't sacrificed for nothing. No. what sprang from this story of loyalty , devotion and obedience was the Israelite tradition that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. I bet this young - dead - fried to a crisp - virgin is happy with her sainthood. God does work in mysterious ways.
(5) Killed for not keeping it in the family and rewarded by God.
"Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman into his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the Israelites. When Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he got up and left the congregation. Taking a spear in his hand, he went after the Israelite man into the tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. So the plague was stopped among the people of Israel.
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 'Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites. Therefore say, "I hereby grant him my covenant of peace. It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites.' '" Numbers 25:6–13
Indeed seems all very racial hatred but once again we see God showing his love and grace by rewarding Phineas with a perpetual priesthood and all the trimming that come with it for keeping his" chosen people" racially pure.
(6) Another display of how cheap human life is to God, in his love and grace.
"See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." Isaiah 13:9–16
So again, we can witness another a perfect example of Gods love and grace on display. This of course is because God is such a generous loving and graceful and all powerful god, that he can simply create more children to be "dashed to pieces" and more "wives to be raped". All of gods' love and grace can be so overwhelming at times, it really can.
(7) With Gods love and grace, he extinguishes fetuses of those who do not worship him.
"You shall acknowledge no God but me. . . . You are destroyed, Israel. . . . The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:4, 9, 16.
Well we can see here that through gods love and grace that he is teaching those unborn fetuses a real lesson in obedience in how to be submissive. And lets hope future fetuses will learn from this lesson delivered with the love and grace by the lord God himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Go and read it yourself.
I did, and before you had the common sense to do so for yourself.. And it caused you great embarrassment when I posted 2 Peter 2:7 in response to you giving us your vivid and pretty deep almost a psychological profile of Lot as a person, especially his nature. #16
Your continual attacks on me - and my character are attacks.
So you keep saying on almost every thread (especially my own threads) just lately, but when I ask you how I am "attacking" you or "humiliating" or "mocking" you, you can never say why or how my words cause you to feel your being "attacked" or "humiliated" or "mocked" . So that leaves me only to believe they these are things that only exist in your own mind. But how they got their, even I don't know?
And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul.
Backpaddling at its best!
Do you EVER think before you post, Reverend? That is most vile attempt at defending the indefeasible that I have ever read. I notice that your pathetic defence of Lot comes only now and comes ONLY AFTER it was pointed out to you that Lot was "righteous" : 2 Peter 2:7
Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?
[A] I could maybe accept your point if you can explain to me, why it was necessary to destroy some One & half million inhabitants of four or five cities that must have included thousands of innocent babies and children under the age of 10 to save this incestuous family of two adults and just the two of their daughters what had his other girls done to be burned to death with fire and brimstone, you cannot say can you!???
If Peter is prepared to call Lot righteous, and to further elaborate on his emotional state in Sodom as to being tortured in his soul day and night - then it provides me with a new and profound respect for Lot that I had glossed over in the past #9 Tradesecret
And there it is. Clear evidence confirming my own beliefs concerning the practice of religious teachers including Ministers and Pastors that they indeed do "gloss over" these problematic verses and do steer their students and parishioners away from them because of the difficulty in explaining them away.
How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example
I'll take that in two parts, Reverend.
Example of what?
See now again Reverend, you are using the same old bullshit as ALL Christians do when caught on the backfoot. Would you like a recent example of you (as do other Christians) driving home the fact according to you and the bible that "NO ONE is innocent"?
You are saying here in one breath that god was " protecting & saving Lot & his innocent family" yet in the many, many breaths before today you cannot wait to tell us that we are all sinners and "even children die because they are sinners" and that "no one is innocent", when it suits your narrative. You do love your dilemmas don't you, Reverend.
Again,
How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent and yet here is an example - {.................._ and rather than saying - Well done God,
Yet you, only NOW are holding up this story of Lot as a shining example of gods love and generosity for rescuing and saving the lives of "the innocent"
You still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil[.......................] rather than saying - Well done God,
See [A].. I will say well done god depending on your response at [A] above.
You still stick your finger up and say even its righteous people are evil
I am, AS DID YOU until it was revealed out to you BY ME, that Lot was "righteous" >>>>2 Peter 2:7 . OR have you so soon, forgotten your own psychological profile of LOT that you meticulously put together for us and BEFORE my revelation ? Here it is , written forever and I have broken it down for all our readers #16, But I am sure you would rather forget this embarrassment now and have your friends bury it under plies of their bullshit to save your sorry arse
Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?
Why is that YOU,after many requests for you to create a thread showing your god in a more better and positive light, never do so?
I am not sure if you read the story or not?
But I have and did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I get Trump dancing to Biden's Tune. Something I would have once thought an impossibility
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
As for experts knowing everything - about everything - what nonsense.
I didn't say that. Stop putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. I am not stupid enough to make such a claim. But you are.
It is YOU that believes that by spouting your titles and qualifications all over the forum somehow makes you better qualified than me to speak about the scriptures. I have simply said that I read, study , scrutinise and question the scriptures. Just like I do your comments.
I have simply pointed out that the Bible IS your business. Religion IS your business. You are both a qualified Pastor and Chaplin.
I'll tell you what you are forgetting shall I? You didn't need to remember the verse, is all you needed to remember was that Lot was said to be righteous. That is how stupid you have been , Reverend.
But you didn't. You gave us a vivid and pretty deep almost a psychological profile of Lot as a person, especially his nature. Look at the detail that you put into describing Lot for us>>>>>
(a)From the beginning - he was in it for himself. Selfish and loyal only to himself.
and you drive home your point (a) with this adage
I would suggest that what he does in this story - is exactly making that point.
You then go on to suggest his indifferent feeling towards his two young girls, telling us;
He had no loyalty to his daughters.
But you can't leave it at that, you then push home your point of how UN-righteous Lot is by giving us qualified and expert opinion of Lot:
I take the view that he was incestuous, depraved, immoral.
And this was odd, you actually mention that ; well read for yourself:
Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.
So there ^^^^^ you make a point of telling he Lot wasn't righteous!!!!! Amazing!!!!
And then you think that you are being really, really smart and by sarcastically asking me:
Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians
Well YES I CAN and I DID!!!!!! and you couldn't. Yet you can described Lot , his selfish nature and his indifferent feelings towards his own daughters. You tell that he wasn't a "paragon of virtue "and ALSO tell us "Lot wasn't righteous" #4 <<<< yet you managed to leave out the most important part about Lot's character; - that Lot was righteous in the eyes of god!!!! how the fk did you manged that! Reverend?
How can you say Lot wasn't righteous AND also say you "forgot" the bible says he was righteous !!!!!???? How would this look to a jury my lawyer friend?
Now who has "a dilemma" Reverend!?
How can God see (and Peter confirms)Lot in a righteous light when in your religiously qualified eyes and all of your biblical training you have told us ( and no doubt your students) that in your experienced and religiously qualified opinion: " I take the view that he was incestuous, depraved, immoral" .
You just continue to demonstrate that you are an ignorant and uneducated person.
Not where these unreliable scriptures are concerned , Reverend. I knew Lot was called righteous in the bible and in the eyes of god. You simply didn't when you should have.
Experts - never pretend to know everything.
I agree. A real expert learns from other peoples mistakes too and not just their own. You should keep that in mind before you post on a forum that you cannot edit after ten minutes, Reverend
I have never pretended to know everything.
And I didn't say you have. But just look how cock sure and sarcastic you were with your first two replies to me on this thread. Not nice being knocked down is it. But you ask for it in my opinion.
Have I read the bible? Yes.
Very poorly. And you are out of your depth when it comes to - detail - in these scripture, Reverend. and that is poor praise for one that ALSO claims to ALSO be a lawyer.
But don't go away, will you. I have the rest of your comments concerning this story to scrutinize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Here's another little movie for you. Get your pop corn out, you will enjoy this oneIt explains all of what you say is true in less than 8 minutes.You get a lot of things wrong because you dont focus like me because I am a true christian.
I am sorry. But being a Christian doesn't make you center of attention in my eyes. I don't care what you are or that you have a faith. If your faith helps you in your daily life then I am genuinely pleased for you.
The cartoon was amature stick man stuff and doesnt say anything about what I said at all
Well you may have done more looking that listening, because it actually says a lot. Try it again and I will post Part 2 for you, maybe it will all come together for you then.
Noah's Ark Part 2
because I was saying about the flood and there was nothing about the flood it was just another one of your jokes.
The cartoon was about the flood and the seriously big problems it was causing for Noah to accomplish god's command and the survival of every single species on earth?
Maybe if you watched them back to back, you know, a kind of 16 minute cartoon binge, then you will get the picture immediately being the sharp, bible savvy christian that you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I agree. We will always have those that - pray - and the predator to prey on them while they are praying. Luke 20:47 New Living TranslationYet they shamelessly cheat widows out of their property and then pretend to be pious by making long prayers in public.You quoted a Bible verse... from what i remember you're not religious. But that's cool with me. It's a book that attempts to have lessons, so it should.I think the people that think they are pious and saving the world... are the problem. They don't realize others have wildly different views. That's why i think one of the biggest toxins in this world is religion. Not government, not whether guns should be legal or not... but religious people that think they have the answer for everyone. It has always done more harm than good imho, ironically. But then again, we are the minority. So is it actually doing good when most people are members? That's an interesting question, that i would answer no bc there are so many splits within the members themselves. This is what happens when you follow a book made by fallible humans as absolute truth.
A1+
As for using a biblical verse/s . I always like to slap someone with their own stick when the opportunity arises and it is deserved. The verse was appropriate under the circumstances.
. I was referencing that verse in particular because of the fact that those that supposed to be looking after and guiding their "flock" one the one hand, were also robbing them blind on the other. hence we - will always have those that kneel and Pray/prey and those that will Prey on them while they are Praying.
And yes. I am not religious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is it so important to you - to try and humiliate me. You don't call any of this an attack. ????
No. I call it showing you for what you are and your lack of biblical knowledge that you claim to be qualified to teach and tutor others in.
Besides I can't see how these words have caused you do feel "humiliated" they are after all, only words and words can't cause anything can they?
"words are just words"#45
I had forgotten about the verse.
Stop lying. That verse would have jumped into your mind right away. The story concerns saving the righteous. Lot was saved and called righteous . You even expanded on what you believed:
Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so [righteous]From the beginning - he was in it for himself. Selfish and loyal only to himself. #4
You hadn't forgot and that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ above proves you hadn't forgot. WHY? because you have given your own very vivid opinion not just of Lot but of the whole story. If you had known Lot was righteous then you would have blurted that out before anything else; but what did you call him and say about him instead "he was in it for himself. Selfish and loyal only to himself and he wasn't a model for Jews or for Christians"
There are many verses in the bible and I have not memorized them.
Same here But when we take into account what the story is about - the righteous- and add to that your years tutorage and your clerical titles- Pastor & Chaplin and your religious qualifications to teach others then I do not believe it possible for you to say those things about Lot yet not know that he was called Righteous.
This story MUST have come up in your time teaching in a discussion . It MUST have been discussed by you and those scholars and academics #91 and it MUST have come up before I created this thread.
Once you reminded me - I recalled and then I knew that you would try and lie about me.
I haven't lied about you. I have simply pointed out your failures and absolutely incredible lack of biblical knowledge that you claim to be qualified in to pass on to others.
I don't care what lies you say. Why would I need to raise it?
I haven't lied and I didn't ask you to come to this thread an make a fool of yourself. You did that all on your own trying to be clever .
You seem to think that everyone is like you - with hours of free time able to pour over every passage and ask every question. Some people actually have jobs. They work. They have families. They need to spend time with. They have a life.
Incredible!!!!!!!! Yes they do have jobs, and You are TRAINED in this particular field. You spent years getting qualifications in religious studies. You teach others in universities. You studied under and was taught by "academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". how much time did all of this take of your life!? You teach this stuff at universities so to say you have no fkn time is another clue that tells me you are lying about yourself.
I also come to the bible quite differently than you do. I ask questions from my position and you ask from yours. Yours is to find as many ways to prove God is evil and the bible is inconsistent. Mine is not.
Wrong. I keep telling you; my concern are the scriptures. I have studied and scrutinised and I question the scriptures. I don't care about what god is or isn't.
As for rewriting the story. Go and read it yourself. The city men rejected Lot' proposal. Yes.
That's right, they did it and wasn't the messengers as you tried yo tell us it was .
We are in agreement there.
We are now. after I pointed the facts out to you and you couldn't deny them.
Yes they wanted to have sex with the angels and pushed past Lot. Yes we are in agreement there.
We are now. after I pointed the facts out to you and you couldn't deny them.
The angels then pulled Lot in and blinded the city men. We agree with this as well. The difference is that you say or imply without any evidence that the angels were happy to let the girls get exploited.
No I am saying they didn't bat a fkn eyelid and neither did the mother of these girls either. Not a single peep saying wtf do you think your doing with our daughters Lot you horrid but righteous bastard!!! Or maybe they simply didn't hear Lots vile proposition at all, from behind the door. And none of this explains how cheap these girls lives were to Lot at least does it, Reverend?
And I say the angels were not in agreement with Lot's proposal and did something about it.
Yes after the towns folk had charged Lots door to get at them. I haven't denied that.
You say - the angels did not do anything until their lives were put on the line.
I said what the bible said at Genesis19 - 9 -10 nothing more nothing less. It is you that has a serious habit of inserting text into the scripture Reverend, not me .
I say - the girls and the angels were inside the building SAFE and protected from the city folk.
So do I . I have followed the scripture and I haven't said different to the scripture.
I say the angels never had any intention of letting the girls be harmed.
You could be right. and probably are. its not the point.
Lot's proposal was wrong.
It was wasn't it. It was not just wrong it was vile and disgusting, but Lot was righteous, wasn't he Reverend? Or have you "forgotten" again already 2 Peter 2:7?
You just make stuff up.
What have I made up?
As I said previously. Lot and his daughters escaped unharmed. The city was judged.
so.
Your continual attacks on me - and my character are attacks.
How? I don't know you. I have never spoken to you face to face or even on a telephone. So how am I attacking you. What is causing to you feel that I am attacking you?
You perhaps think you are just being critically helpful or constructive.
No. I am simply questioning the bible and defending my stance and my claims to the best of my ability while I deconstruct your claims and the claims made in the scriptures
Words are words - and causes are causes.
Indeed and words cause things . My words "that are just words" seem to be causing you to feel uncomfortable. But you haven't explained how or why.
The Bible is the bible which is full of flawed people.
And flawed stories and comments and statements.
And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul.
But righteous Reverend, he was also righteous in the eyes of god.2 Peter 2:7
And still you try you complain.
Is that what you think I am doing? Complaining? No I am scrutinising these scriptures Reverend. I am doing what you fail to do.
Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?
Why is that after many requests for you to create a thread showing your god in a more better and positive light, you never do so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Listen, all religious forums need the Bible dumbfounded Tradesecrets because we need to LAUGH
At times maybe, Brother. But I honestly do expect more from someone that claims to be a lawyer and a qualified Pastor and a Chaplin#20 . Someone that claims to tutor at Universities and claims to have studied and been tutored her/himself " by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". #91.
What ever is s/he teaching at these places? s/he didn't even know that Lot was righteous #4 but pretended , with all her/his qualifications that she had "forgot"!!! when the storey was about saving the righteous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So you are going to try and distinguish the two?
Start a thread of your own on the subject I will gladly make the distinction between the written words of the bible and the very real life visual appearance of a woman dressed provocatively and what this may cause.
Your not going to derail my thread because I have checked you with your own fkn ignorant WORDS, Reverend.
You keep saying I am "attacking" you. But I have never met you. I have never spoken to you face to face, or on the phone yet you say I mock you. HOW!?
Strange then, how my words are causing you to respond. Have my words embarrassed you in any way? I know my words have somehow magically caused you to feel "mocked", because you told me that yourself, but how? You have also told me that you consider my words to be an attack on you, How? Could you explain how my words are causing you to feel both mocked and attacked?
You might evaluate them and respond to them - but that is still you doing the responding or non-responding.
What do you mean by "responding to them" - words? How do simple words that are "just words "cause people to respond?
You have been denying words do not cause anyone to do anything, "they are just words", you have repeated this a few times now. you have said the same about the bible here:
" the bible is JUST a book that can't cause nothing"#3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR REVEALING AND HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE TO STEPHEN #60: @Tradesecret wrote "Or will you wimp out of dealing with the issue like you do everytime things get tough?
I am not sure why the Reverend believes that I will to run away from my own thread! this is the kind of nonsense I would expect from someone such as ethang5 to say, not a fully qualified Pastor or Chaplin? But that said, the Reverends syntax has changed since the return of ethag5.
Maybe s/he believes that by posting questions of his/her own on my thread that this will distract from the fact that I have caught her/him cold at post #59 above with some very simple questions caused by her own written comments about me and my words. That s/he has avoided three times now.
S/he often too tells me that sometimes my questions do not even deserve to be responded to, yet here s/he is screaming for me saying "Respond to my whole post."
You may have noticed Brother that while this thread, MY thread, is concerned with only the power and influence of the written word and the Reverend Tradesecrete's claim that "words are just words"#45 and his /her claim that "the bible is just an book and can't cause anything "#3, the Reverend seems to believe that I should somehow liken the written word of the scriptures with the very real life VISUAL appearance of a woman dressed "provocatively" and what if anything that may cause.
It is difficult for one believe this has come from a trained and qualified lawyer by all accounts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Regarding the Noah's ark narrative, I can't help in remembering how the Blatant Bible Fool Tradesecret described this Biblical event, remember? LOL!
Who can forget that classic clanger, Brother?
As if by saying " “it could have been animal infants loaded upon the Ark” some how made the story anymore believable!? Who was she trying to convince, himself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Here's another little movie for you. Get your pop corn out, you will enjoy this one
It explains all of what you say is true in less than 8 minutes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
It's human nature. I've come to accept reality for what it is... a rat race, with a lot of rats.
I agree. We will always have those that - pray - and the predator to prey on them while they are praying. Luke 20:47 New Living Translation
Yet they shamelessly cheat widows out of their property and then pretend to be pious by making long prayers in public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I did forget about that passage.
Do you actually realise what you have said there Chaplin/Pastor? You are telling us that in all your years of study and with all of your claimed qualifications that this question has never once been raised neither by your own students, that you proudly mention here: #20, and that you hadn't ever discussed it with your academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church, that you proudly tell us that you were "tutored by" that you have proudly mentioned here : #91 BUT worst of all, you have never raised the question yourself.
It is realisations such as these above ^^^^^^^^^^^ that cause me to believe that you are simply a fraud and have only made these claims to elevate yourself above others and give credence to your claims to being a lawyer and a pastor and a Chaplin there by making yourself an authority ABOVE OTHERS on matters biblical . It hasn't worked on me, Reverend.
It must be case of either your biblical students are the dumbest on the planet OR , like all religious teachers of religious matters, you have steered them away from these awkward and problematic questions that arise from the biblical scriptures themselves.
You hadn't forgot, you just didn't know. If you had you wouldn't have taken the time to challenge me with both these stupid replies.
@Tradesecret I can't seem to recall where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? [because } I can't and I would never hold him up as so.
So again Yes and I have shown you, Reverend. 2 Peter 2:7 "and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless" .
Once I pointed 2 Peter 2:7 out to you, IT WAS ONLY THEN in your total embarrassment that you desperately scrambled for reasons why Lot was indeed called righteous. With all of your qualifications and experience as a Tutor, Lawyer a Pastor AND a Chaplin, you should have UATOMATICALLY known that Lot in the bible is called "RIGHTEOUSE"!
And it matters not for what reason the scriptures actually say "LOT was righteous ", it is enough that they do , no matter how YOU now all of a sudden want to write into the scriptures your own beliefs why they have called Lot righteous .
But YOU, a lecturer of religion that tells us , " I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them", #20 couldn't remember if or not the central biblical character in a well known biblical story, was righteous or not!!!!?
But you couldn't stop there could you?
So with your lawyers cap now firmly on your head, lets look at your other bullshit attempts at defending these biblical characters and their actions.
The angels did not accept Lot's proposal.
Where in scripture does it say these messengers “did not accept Lot’s proposal”? It doesn’t does it?
So within just two posts you are attempting already to rewrite the scriptures and put words in the mouths of the biblical authors in an attempt to explain away this vile biblical episode and justify the actions of these biblical characters. You just cannot help yourself can you?
So let us stay with the biblical evidence of that we do know from the ACTUAL scriptures, shall we, our lawyer friend? #20 And not what you believe should only now be inserted into the actual BIBLICAL evidence of the statement in the verses of the biblical author to defend your clients, Lot and gods messengers
WE DO KNOW the towns folk showed no interest in Lot’s horrific proposal don’t we? Lot made his proposal and they ignored it and “Get out of the way! “ they said.
Job was outside talking to the mob and the messengers were on the other side of the closed door inside Lots house.
And it was only after this disgusting proposal was ignored by the townsfolk and the towns folk started for Lots door do the scriptures actually state that these messengers from god: “ reached out and pulled Lot in [to the house] and then blinded the men in the street” .
Here read it for yourself :
Genesis19 - 9 But they replied, “Get out of the way! This man came here as a foreigner, and now he’s acting like a judge! So we’re going to deal more harshly with you than with them.” Then they pushed hard against the man (that is, against Lot), intending to break down the door.
10 But the angels inside reached out, dragged Lot back into the house with them, shut the door.
So clearly they were not interested in having sex with Lot’s young virgin daughters. But told Lotto “stand back out of the way “so they could “ have sex with them” as THE SCRIPTURE clearly states they wanted to do at Genesis19-5.
And it was only at the point of the attempted forced entry into the house of Lot did these men/messengers of god decided to act.. How gallant of them?
And do you notice what they say here. These townsfolk that want to harshly have sex with these messengers and then with Lot himself , but more harshly.
They called out to Lot and asked, “Where are the men who came to visit you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”
Genesis19-5.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I can't seem to recall where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so.
2 Peter 2:7
"and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless" .
The Brother had you tagged from day one didn't he?
I am not sure if you read the story or not?
I have serious doubts whether you have ever read the whole scriptures for yourself, or questioned them for yourself, Reverend Chaplin Tradesecrete?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I came with questions and left with more.
That is what these biblical stories do to me. They cause me to ask more questions . The vile and disgusting nature of this verse alone tells us how cheap a females chastity and lives were even if it is ones own daughters or how young they were!
The first thing that this type of biblical story causes me to think is whether or not a teacher of religious education such as a Vicar, a Chaplin, a Pastor or Priest would ever highlight and discuss this vile verse with his or her young pupils or students? Would they risk the possibility that they themselves would be seen in a different light and risk watching their own authority and status crumble before their own eyes for believing and agreeing and worst of all defending Lots vile and disgusting proposal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
"The verses told me" ... "I did it" ... had I not done it. Ethang is not saying the Bible caused him to do something. He is indicating that he read the words - or even that the bible spoke to him. But he responded to those words. And please notice - Ethang5 could have chosen to respond passively. But the BIBLE DID not cause him to do anything. He read the words - he evaluated what they were saying -and HE CHOSE to respond and to believe. If the Bible could cause anything - why did it not simply make him believe "without asking Ethang to do anything".But he is saying exactly that. The words "told" Ethang5, as he clearly admits it, he says so. And he responded to those words that" spoke to him". His "response " was CAUSED by those words.You can play semantics all day Reverend. But words do cause people to respond, act and feel, in all sorts of ways.Your argument is proving too much.
That will be your pride and arrogance forcing you to continuously deny your thoughtless throwaway statement that "words are ONLY words ". #45 And that " the bible is JUST a book that can't cause nothing"#3 to be absolutely wrong.
Essentially you are saying that everything causes everything
No.. We are talking about WORDS.
And do not attempt to put your words into my mouth.
I am not one of your biblical characters or authors who's word's you often replace with your own conjecture, thoughts , beliefs and imaginings in a desperate attempt to pass them off as "gospel truth".
You keep saying I am "attacking" you. But I have never met you. I have never spoken to you face to face, or on the phone yet you say I mock you. HOW!?
Strange then, how my words are causing you to respond. Have my words embarrassed you in any way? I know my words have somehow magically caused you to feel "mocked", because you told me that yourself, but how? You have also told me that you consider my words to be an attack on you, How? Could you explain how my words are causing you to feel both mocked and attacked?
You might evaluate them and respond to them - but that is still you doing the responding or non-responding.
What do you mean by "responding to them" - words? How do simple words that are "just words "cause people to respond?
You have been denying words do not cause anyone to do anything, "they are just words", you have repeated this a few times now. you have said the same about the bible here:
" the bible is JUST a book that can't cause nothing"#3
Created:
Posted in:
........do what you like with them".
How generous of this man Lot, to offer his virgin daughters in place of two strangers said to be messengers of god himself.
One simply has to ask , why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped to save their skin ? And where was god to reprimand Lot?
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” Genesis 19:1-21
It is as if this was the normal practice for a father to offer his little girls when he or his god sent guests are in danger.
and someone on another mentioned Morals:
The tale goes on to tell the familiar story about Lots wife turning into a pillar of salt <<(I know, ) and eventually Lots two virgin daughters rape Lot while he is drunk or asleep or both.
Of course; Lot cannot of course be held accountable for this incestuous depraved and immoral licentious act , because he was out of his head and "didn't know a thing about it, honest guv" . Genesis 19:30-38
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite ….
𝅘𝅥𝅮 𝅘𝅥𝅮 𝅘𝅥𝅮 the lord 𝅘𝅥 𝅘𝅥 god 𝅘𝅥𝅮 𝅘𝅥𝅮 𝅘𝅥𝅮 made them all𝅘𝅥 𝅘𝅥
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Your Afterlife will be the same as your Beforelife.
A1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
"The verses told me" ... "I did it" ... had I not done it. Ethang is not saying the Bible caused him to do something. He is indicating that he read the words - or even that the bible spoke to him. But he responded to those words. And please notice - Ethang5 could have chosen to respond passively. But the BIBLE DID not cause him to do anything. He read the words - he evaluated what they were saying -and HE CHOSE to respond and to believe. If the Bible could cause anything - why did it not simply make him believe "without asking Ethang to do anything".
But he is saying exactly that. The words "told" Ethang5, as he clearly admits it, he says so. And he responded to those words that" spoke to him". His "response " was CAUSED by those words.
You can play semantics all day Reverend. But words do cause people to respond, act and feel, in all sorts of ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
You don't know what anyone will be doing in heaven OR paradise, do you?You should be more respectful like me because what I am saying is the truth and you dont want to no about it.
No what you are saying is what you believe to be the truth. But you still haven't explained what we will be doing in heaven OR paradise although you pretend to know.
So I respectfuly ask you why you think it is wrong that if you live in eternity that you dont do everything.
And I respectfully am asking you to show me where I have said "you don't do anything".? I asked you because I admit that I don't know, and neither do you?
Say there is a monkey and you put it in a room with a typerighter for eternity then the monkey is going to type Romeo and Juliet and all the other books.You cant deny that can you.
And you can show me a "monkey in a room typing and plagiarising Romeo and Juliet and all other books", can you ?
Created: