Total posts: 8,861
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Stephen!Could you create a separate thread so you and I can have a proper discussion of biblical scripture?
There is nothing stopping you creating your own thread on any given subject in any of the sub forums on this site. Which includes the religion forum.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thank you for correcting me.If you become a Christian, surely you will have a reward for this in heaven.
Nope. I am not celibate. Read your bible.
Corrected you again, but still no reward for me.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
God doesnt enable evil.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things".
Isaiah 45:7
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Stephen wrote:I see.I thought you were replying to my comments here.>>
zedvictor4: See above.
Gotcha, Vic, lad😊
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Reverend Tradesecret wrote;
@zedvictor4There is meaning in symbolism.
If this bible dunce Tradesecret, (now calling himself DavidAZ) had been educated by all the scholars that he claims to have been educated by, such as here>
Tradesecret wrote;“I studiedand was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers fromthe Orthodox Church”.
And to have memorised the bible as he claimes here>;
Tradesecretwrote: "I have memorised the bible from a very young age, I know it backwardsand in many languages.",#52
then he would know the exact reason why John the Baptist was cleansing acolytes in the river. But he doesn't.
Historian Josephus tell us why this ritual had to take place and strangely enough, so does the gospel of Mathew,. Only our resident Reverend Tradesecret/ DavidAZ is far too bible ignorant and cretinous to know this.
And lets not forget, this is the same Reverend , Pastor and Chaplain that wishes that " religion should be abolished".!!!!#52 saying
Tradesecretwrote:" I have never believed in religion. Religion ought to be abolished from my point of view"
Yet here he is preaching the merits of baptism.
You couldn't make it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I see.
I thought you were replying to my comments here.>>
Have a Grand Sunny Bromsgrovian Day.
I will, Pub Day for me today. Red Lion . Thank you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, I'd noticed that.
Which part, Vic?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As I said. Child abuse.Do you even know what is baptism?
Yes. Child abuse.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Your solution, sounds to me, is to allow 'others to tell you how to live your life.
Quite the opposite. I have said, baptism of children too young to know what is going on is - child abuse.
The children in those reports I posted above-some as young as five were terrified wondering why they were hated and abused by fkn adults!!. They more than likely didn't understand that it was because their parents has signed them up to a life long membership of their own version of god and religion.
"Loyalists" i.e. Protestants attack Catholic children as young as five!
A school run like no other.
Yet the OP, The Reverend Tradesecret suggests that " the arguments against it don't hold as much water".
If this ritual has to happen at all it should be left up to the child to pick her/her own side or not at all when s/he becomes adult .
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I you want a good example of why children shouldn't be baptised watch this.
"Loyalists" i.e. Protestants attack Catholic children as young as five!
A school run like no other.
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the cause which began this form of protest, it was lost in the terrified faces of the girls forced to suffer a school run like no other".
.
Woman one: "There must be a reason why we're doing this. There must be. We've had enough fear and we can't take it no more. We don't care."
Woman two: "We don't care; we're like the Jews now, I think."
Woman one: "I mean I wouldn't let my son or my daughter come home from a disco or anything from that Crumlin Road to get in here and it's the only way they can come at night."
Me: "This morning, whatever the wrongs and rights here, a bomb went off close to the children going to school. How did that make you feel?"
Woman one: "I'm past feeling. You can't understand that. I am past feeling. I'm not going to run my ones down for throwing that bomb."
Me: "But you're not a terrorist."
Woman one: "I'm not. No, I'm not a terrorist. No, I'm a mother. I'm a mother of five children."
Me: "Who's to blame for this?"
Woman one: "Themmuns down there."
Me: "How would you have felt this morning if a child had been killed?"
Woman one: "I'd have felt terrible. I'm a mother of five. Yes, it would be like me losing one of my own. I could feel for that mother."
Me: "So you're not past caring."
The very first quote by "woman one", is easily answered. FKN BAPTISM!
These were terrified children wondering why they were hated and abused . They more than likely didn't understand that it was because their parents has signed them up to a life long membership of their own version of god and religion.
Yet the OP, The Reverend Tradesecret suggests that " the arguments against it don't hold as much water".
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I assume the optimal age for baptism is age 7 or 8.
As I said. Child abuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
@DavidAZ
@ BrotherD.Thomas : LOL! Bring it on.This could be fun!
That's the problem with narcissists with a personality disorder like Tradsecret. They just cannot help show their true colours, Brother D.
BrotherD.Thomas wrote: Uh, I did "bring it on" .
So did I Brother D. Here>>
And after telling me that he " appreciate my time". Here>>
DavidAZ aka Tradesecret got cold feet saying:
I do not wish to hold "some childish banter back and forth".
And now he's saying "bring it on"!!
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I find it incredible that a person that claims to be both a Pastor and a Chaplain (not to mention a Preterist) to his countries armed forces and with a congregation to over 300 worshipers as the Reverend Tradesecret does hasn't in his op attempted explain what baptism is exactly? The reasons for baptism? How baptism actually works? Its origins? Where does one get the authority to preform this ritual?
No one can tell us where John the "baptist" got his authority from? Did Jesus ever actually baptise anyone himself?
As for "baptism at birth", it nothing short of child abuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
TRADESECRET/DAVIDAZ wrote: Stephen and or the Brother. they both make stuff up
Brother, Tradsecret has no credibility at all.
I have exposed him for the compulsive lying narcissist that he is many times as I have his bible ignorance. Only someone that hasn't been here long enough to know the Reverend Tradesecret will pay him the attention he craves. Attention I am sure he was used to before he blocked us both. I said he would miss you and I before I/we would miss him. Hence his return under a new user name.
To be perfectly honest. I don't care two fks about the attention seeking twat. No matter how many user names he returns to this forum under.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Tradesecret perhaps we don't read the same dictionary, or perhaps we read the same dictionary but not in the same way.
Yes it is a trait of Tradesecret to redefine words that are universally acceptable to anyone in the English speaking world and invent his own meanings and definitions to fit his argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Stephen is biased in his views. And could not make an objective statement.
DavidAZ aka Tradesecret it would be interesting for you to show us the justification for the pointless and wicked killing that I raised here in response to -;
DavidAZ wrote
DavidAZ wrote:The God of the old testament has always been considered good or righteous. He helps people when they cry out to him, he delivers his people in dire situations and even cares for a old widow woman during a drought. God can also be severe such as during Noah's flood, the judgement of the Egyptians in the Exodus and the punishment of the Judah and Israel in their exile. Even though God has been rough and severe, he always will bend an ear to those who call on them. He does care for his own but he will not tolerate insolence against his ways. God always gives the best to his people, but will be upset if it is not appreciated. He does command people to fear him, which is not an unusual position to be in when you are in authority. There are people in his plan that were "used" for his good that would seem that he doesn't care or regard the feelings of others just so He can get his way, but most do not recognize the lessons he is trying to teach or the training he is giving. There are times he executes judgement on others that may seem "wicked", but we don't know their whole story and sometimes why God had the judgement drawn.
Stephen wrote: "His people" and "his own". That will be his Holy chosen and treasured people ; Hebrew /Israelites?
“For you [Israel] are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” Deuteronomy 7:6 and Deuteronomy 14:2
"declares the Lord, “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.” Jeremiah 31:14.
Please do not waste your own or my time accusing me of "cherry picking" or having a "skewed position". These are direct quotes from god himself as written in the bible. They mean only one thing in any language; God had chosen a group of people and called them, his own, special, holy and "treasured possession".
Your god hated foreigners didn't he? That would be anyone that he didn't choose. Indeed your god hated anything that was foreign, as in the case of Arron's two son's murdered on the spot, no if's or but's because they used the wrong type ( foreign) of fire. Leviticus 10:1-3. I will admit the story on the face is as wicked as it is strange. As is the wicked but strange story of Uzzah.
So when you are ready DavidAZ aka Tradesecret maybe you'd like to give an acceptable, rational and justifiable reason for these wicked acts of god?
Created:
Posted in:
I have always found it absolutely amazing how far the Christian apologist will go to justify wicked acts performed by their god. Even to go as far as to change the definition and whole meaning of a word used in the bible. They do this not realising that they throw whole bible verses completely out of context. They apply this deceitful practice being of the belief that their new definition and new meaning has given them an escape from what are usually unescapable theological dilemma.
In my own personal experience in the time I have been here, I have witnessed words such a "touch" redefined as "light". I have seen the word "curse" redefined as "murder"! And I have even had that old weary chestnut throw at me that - "to understand the bible one has to know and have studied ancient Hebrew or Greek languages".
These are not very well thought out responses or excuses for these biblical dilemmas. In fact when these deceitful practices are applied by the apologist they do not seem to have realised that (1) in the case of individual words the context goes flying out of the window (2) in the case of ancient languages they simply render ALL bibles written in English pointless, void and redundant. This is what happens when Christian apologist rush to the defend the indefensible wicked deeds performed by god..
This deceitful practice has happened on this very forum on a number of occasions, with the most recent being here in this exchange between two members;
Melcharaz wrote: when you say fear. do you mean actually be afraid of? or to honor him?DavidAZ wrote: I believe the biblical reference to the word "fear" is more of an honor or reverence. It is the same idea as your feelings to your father (assuming your father was a good man) when you were a kid. You loved your dad and enjoyed being around your dad, but cross dad and, whoowee!, get ready for some correction. You know dad had the power to make your life miserable but you also know that your dad loved you so you stayed on his good side, knowing that insolence could land you some painful lessons. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125-is-the-god-of-the-bible-good-or-wicked?page=1&post_number=26
Apart from that being such a obvious leading question submitted by Melcharaz the response you will see is nothing short of pathetic not to mention childlike and which just happens to be defining "fear" and not "honour or reverence". This is what results in rushing to excuse the inexcusable and to defend the indefensible.
Also, one should take note David AZ doesn't give a reason or a source for his "biblical reference" or definition of what he only "thinks" the bible means by the word "fear".
So lets look at this word "fear" and put DavidAZ's definition to the test and see if he maybe correct simply by taking just a few other verses from the bible that contain the word "fear".
I will put my fear in their hearts.
Well that doesn't seem to be anything to do with "honor or reverence". So lets try DavidAZ's definition:
" I will put reverence and honor in their hearts".
Slavish fear is the effect or consequence of guilt; it is the painful apprehension of merited punishment.
Again I fail to notice how this equates with either of the words "honor or reverence". So lets try DavidAZ's definition:
Slavish "honor or reverence" is the effect or consequence of guilt; it is the painful apprehension of merited punishment.
There are many references in the Bible showing that when and if the bible uses both "reverence OR honour " that they only come about through fear.
Example:
"This do, and live: for I fear God"..
" Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire".
here is the BIBLICAL definition of the word;
FEAR,
A painful emotion or passion excited by an expectation of evil, or the apprehension of impending danger. Fear expresses less apprehension than dread, and dread less than terror and fright. The force of this passion, beginning with the most moderate degree, may be thus expressed, fear, dread, terror, fright. Fear is accompanied with a desire to avoid or ward off the expected evil. Fear is an uneasiness of mind, upon the thought of future evil likely to befall us.
A painful emotion or passion excited by an expectation of evil, or the apprehension of impending danger. Fear expresses less apprehension than dread, and dread less than terror and fright. The force of this passion, beginning with the most moderate degree, may be thus expressed, fear, dread, terror, fright. Fear is accompanied with a desire to avoid or ward off the expected evil. Fear is an uneasiness of mind, upon the thought of future evil likely to befall us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Doesn't our own justice system work "wicked" things to those who disobey the law?
Not as a rule. "Our own justice system"works within the definition of justice. i.e it strives to make things JUST. Granted, it is not perfect; it makes mistakes but those mistakes can and are corrected when brought to light.
God determined the judgement to be cruel.
So you admit then that god's judgment is cruel. I would go much further and say it out-right wicked and unjust which for YOU are words that you neither understand nor can you even define, Tradesecret.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,Seriously, what would we do without the outright Bible Stupids®️ of Miss Tradesecret, DavidAZ, and YouFound_Lxam, where they are shown as an example in how not to be a True Christian!
I suppose we'd be at a loss for a little light entertainment Brother D.
There again it does leave others free to put their thoughts and theories forward for others to ponder without interruption without unnecessary interruption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
BUT DO NOT under any circumstances EAT THE FRIGGEN APPLES.
Indeed Deb, the crime of all crimes, the "sin" of all sins.. Children scrumping in their neighbours orchard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
We are trying to translate.FEAR.WICKEDGOOD.And get this.Its NotFear.Good.Wicked .Of / from the dictionary.Its OTB.Thats OF the friggen bible.
You mean like this clap trap, deb?
Melcharaz wrote: when you say fear. do you mean actually be afraid of? or to honor him?DavidAZ wrote : I believe the biblical reference to the word "fear" is more of an honor or reverence. It is the same idea as your feelings to your father (assuming your father was a good man) when you were a kid. You loved your dad and enjoyed being around your dad, but cross dad and, whoowee!, get ready for some correction. You know dad had the power to make your life miserable but you also know that your dad loved you so you stayed on his good side, knowing that insolence could land you some painful lessons.#26
I intend to make a thread on why this is absolute bullshit later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I believe the biblical reference to the word "fear" is more of an honor or reverence. It is the same idea as your feelings to your father (assuming your father was a good man) when you were a kid. You loved your dad and enjoyed being around your dad, but cross dad and, whoowee!, get ready for some correction. You know dad had the power to make your life miserable but you also know that your dad loved you so you stayed on his good side, knowing that insolence could land you some painful lessons.
The above quote is typical of those that cannot think for themselves, or in your case think before they post. And you have forgotten one obvious and simple thing, Tradesecret. Little kids grow into big adults where they WILL, are able and do speak their minds to their fathers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Why have you terminated your brilliant conversation with ludofl3x, Tradesecret?
Created:
The kingdom of Jesus is not a worldly kingdom.
Well apart from this being of no use whatsoever to god's people in there hour of need, can you show us all where in the OT prophecies does is mention that Jesus or any of the other Messiah's will rule over some other worldly kingdom?
Created:
your boy failed as the promised Messiah.How did he fail?
You are not keeping up. You missed post #10 above.
And depending on which gospel one chooses to believe, Jesus’ ministry lasted one year(some argue three+ years), and in that time is all he seemed to have managed to do was attempt to reunite the lost tribes or “lost sheep” of Israel and failed, surround himself with rich zealots, and other rich individuals of power and influence, upset the ruling classes, say some philosophical sounding and bias things and inherited nothing but three nails, two bits of wood, and very thorny crown with a lovely view overlooking the Kidron Valley as he hung their suffering on the crucifix made from said materials and after praying to his "father" to "relieve him of his terror".
(WHICH must be the first recorded incident where a prayer to god had gone unanswered)! Indeed he asked his own father and is all he got was crickets..... and arrested.
And this does not in anyway resemble sitting on the throne of King David to rule over the Jews and reign over all of Jerusalem "for ever and ever", as his mother was promised.
Stop wasting your time and mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes you keep saying that but I have asked you ; What about reducing our life span? Was that nothing to do with god intervening because of human life choices ?Are there any examples of God reducing someone's lifespan in the Bible?
Read what I wrote: You are looking for the words -Was that. I have highlighted them for you in bold underlined.
So there is no law that states we should keep out promise to god?Not what I said.I said we are not forced to keep our promises to God, not that we have to.
I know but that wasn't my question. I asked ; So there is no law that states we should keep out promise to god?
In this story's case, man made the promise, and man kept the promise.Did God command anything in this instance?
This is not what I asked you. I will put is another way. Should we keep our promises that we make to god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Can God change his mind?
Does god change his mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I see. "Can't" you say. So god never intervenes in human affairs? What about reducing our life span? Was that nothing to do with god intervening because of human life choices ?God can't interfere with our moral choices, because that would be taking away our free will.
Yes you keep saying that but I have asked you ; What about reducing our life span? Was that nothing to do with god intervening because of human life choices ? #82
FFS! It was a horrific biblical horror story. I would say that barbequing your own innocent virgin child was a pretty "wicked" act .Did he barbeque his own child by his own choice. No, he made a promise. The scripture even stated that he regrated his promise.But God didn't force him to do this either, because he could have decided not to keep the promise to God.
So there is no law that states we should keep out promise to god?
You didn't answer this question#82 :
YouFound_Lxam wrote: It was sad and unfortunate, but he had to keep his promise.
Why?
Wasn't child sacrifice against the law of god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Let us wait for Miss Tradesecret to biblically post once more, so I can correct her Bible stupidity AGAIN!
Well my guess would be that s/he already has posted again , Brother D.
It's just than some here cannot see it.😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Tell me, was it an unreasonable request?Did you ask him because he had a pattern of doing this? I asked him and he answered just fine in this topic. I think you asked him because reflexively you figure believers all like to do that, maybe that's true, maybe you're right, but I don't think it's especially conducive to conversation with a new member like that.
He had no problem giving his definitions to me either, "he answered just fine", regardless of my reason, which was to avoid unnecessary arguments over the meaning and definitions of the words "good and "wicked". It was BIBLICAL definitions I asked for: here
You asked the same;
"Can you perhaps define what you think the word "wicked" means in context, just so that when people are pulling bible passages, they're not wasting their time"?
I'll grant you, you did maybe ask in a more diplomatic way that I. But did you read his response to you?.
DavidAZ wrote: "As for wicked, I am leaving that to be defined by any poster as they see fit".
He responded in this way because it left the gate wide open for him to argue definitions later on during any conversation. He's a sly crafty fkr. And he knows that I know he is.
The word games are all these scriptural things you're using as a gotcha,[....................]then start name calling and all that.
Not at all. I asked for the exact opposite reason. I didn't want an argument or a gotcha moment. I didn't want yet another thread reduced to "name calling". as I said, I was simply attempting to avoid the very issue of definitions later on in the conversation- nip it in the bud, so to speak.
You didn't answer my question Ludo;
Tell me, was it an unreasonable request?
new member
And you believe that do you. Rhetorical question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I agree, the redefining of words is pretty lame and boring.
And it is sly and devious too.
And now you should understand that was my sole reason for asking DavidAZ to define both words "good" and "wicked" BEFORE we went any further. They are good at changing the definitions and meanings of words half way through a conversation.
Tell me, was it an unreasonable request?
If you don't get value out of interacting with him, then don't, there's no rule that you have to.
But that is what I was sincerely hoping for. But the coward fell at the first fence and has since made excuse for not interacting on the same "lame" and flimsy reason saying that - I, ME !!! " was playing word games", !!!.
The best part of all is that he did give me his "definitions" and in the same post said;
DavidAZ wrote: I do appreciate your time on this Stephen.#12
It was only AFTER I posted my first response to his actual question that he decided he didn't want to play anymore and took his ball home.
It all there for you or anyone else to read for themselves..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Playing word games with the bible isn't going to get anyone very far
Then you have never held a conversation with that bible dunce the Reverend Tradesecret. Is all he ever does is redefine words in the bible to fit his arguments. In fact this all apologist ever do. See above on this very thread!!
Melcharaz wrote: when you say fear. do you mean actually be afraid of? or to honor him?DavidAZ wrote : I believe the biblical reference to the word "fear" is more of an honor or reverence. It is the same idea as your feelings to your father (assuming your father was a good man) when you were a kid. You loved your dad and enjoyed being around your dad, but cross dad and, whoowee!, get ready for some correction. You know dad had the power to make your life miserable but you also know that your dad loved you so you stayed on his good side, knowing that insolence could land you some painful lessons.
I intend to make a comment on why this is absolute bullshit later.
Oh and that was my sole reason for asking DavidAZ to define both words "good" and "wicked". maybe now you understand!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why didn't god intervein in this "wicked" story and spare the child !?Was Jephthah "wicked" or "good"? 30-40 Judges. K J V.God can't intervene in the choices of humans, because that would be taking away our free will to choose sin or life.
I see. "Can't" you say. So god never intervenes in human affairs? What about reducing our life span? Was that nothing to do with god intervening because of human life choices ?
Jephthah wasn't wicked.
FFS! It was a horrific biblical horror story. I would say that barbequing your own innocent virgin child was a pretty "wicked" act .
He made a promise to God, and regretted that promise.
Indeed he was so regretful and sad that he followed through with the murder of his of his own virgin child. Would you have done as Jephthah did. Surely the honourable thing would have been to plead with god for the life of his child and offer a sacrifice of a ram instead and hand over all his worldly goods to the "poor" . Or simply kill himself.
It was sad and unfortunate, but he had to keep his promise.
Why?
Wasn't child sacrifice against the law of god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
DavidAZ, who uses lame child-like excuses to RUN AWAY from my factual Biblical axioms
Brother D.
Re-arrange these words. They most certainly apply to our "new" member DavidAZ
kitchen the if stand the of out get you can't heat.
BEGIN: .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
definition
Don't make me laugh. when you lot run out of apologetics for the actions of you "wicked" god this is what you ALL resort to. The Reverend Tradesecret was master at it................ or thought he was.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Not a single part of this promise came to fruition."31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus."How about verse 31? This did not happen?
Only the Old Testament prophesy - which Christians heavily rely on for "proof" that Jesus was the Messiah- says his name will be called "Immanuel". Isaiah 7:14
But non of this matters. Even if his name was Emmanuel instead of Jesus, your boy failed as the promised Messiah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam
Why didn't god intervein in this "wicked" story and spare the child !?
Was Jephthah "wicked" or "good"?
30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.
33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.
36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.
And it was a custom in Israel,
40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year. Judges. K J V.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen, do you think DavidAZ will RUN AWAY from this discussion
No I didn't Brother D.
That was until I just read this:
In the mean time I will sit back and enjoy reading his comments on this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
PS the "plan" stuff is also why I never understood why Judas Iscariot was so reviled and synonymous with treachery. Without him, Easter doesn't happen.
Me neither.
In fact I created a thread all about it here 2 years ago;
Judas Had A Bad Deal.
The usual suspects gave it a wide birth....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Stephen just sounds like an angry teenager and I wanted to give him a platform to spout his beliefs,
Well that is generous of you DavidAZ.. Did you not stop to think that this is actually a forum where I can create my own platform to "spout" my beliefs, which I have done regularly ?
I am not angry at all. I enjoy discussing all things biblical - unlike yourself it appears that simply prefers to discuss why god is great and loves us with all his heart.
all he did is play the word games like our posts in the other thread and ignore my "other aspects" portion anyways
No. They weren't word games they were simply asking for clarification before any conversation went any further.
You gave me you own definitions of both the words "good" and wicked" which I appreciated and in the very same post you said this to me:
DavidAZ wrote: I do appreciate your time on this Stephen.#12
from that point I started with my comments. HERE>
So stop with your excuses for not responding.
What I posed obviously was a little too difficult for you but it would have been interesting to me why you believed the actions of god in those cases were "good" and not "wicked".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
You’re getting cornered because of your lack of knowledge .
I don't think so.
But I have no intention of helping you derail what is someone else's half decent topic.. So this is as far as I will go with you.
I asked DavidAZ for the Biblical definition of the words "wicked" and "good" #10
He has given me what appears to be a somewhat childlike opinion of what those words mean i.e "his own" definition without source. #12
Here>
DavidAZ wrote: Good would be the opposite: The act or thought of helping others for their benefit or the benefit of society. I.E. giving, loving, helping, also a doctor could do a good thing by cutting out a tumor, hurting someone, but for their benefit.#12
I am ok with that but I then asked him;
Stephen wrote: And what about a complete disregard for justice, truth, honesty, the righteous and righteousness?#18 , which he seems to have left out from his opinion/definition for the word "Good" .
I was quite puzzled at his childlike reply for the simple reason he had left out what I believe would be the main ingredients that amounted to "good".
This forum discussion on the subject- created for my benefit by all accounts#1 - is titled: Is the God of the Bible "good" or "wicked"?
Regardless.
I responded to his op pointing out just a few unexplainable wicked acts preformed by god against some of his own treasured people,#6 to which there has been no response from David AZ as to why he may consider these wicked acts by god against his own treasured and righteous Israelites as being good and not wicked?
Interesting;
That although he has been busy responding some 11 times to other posters including ludofl3x and seems to have given my comments a pass.? Indeed he was so engrossed with - ludofl3x - with some 7 replies, where in his responses he never once explains the issues raised by ludofl3x in relation to why he considers the points in said conversation to be good and not wicked!? I was sorry to see that particular exchange come to an abrupt end with David AZ throwing in the towel so early stating that;
DavidAZ wrote: I really feel my view will be quickly abolished.It has been great to discuss this with you [ludofl3x] you make some valid points. #37
But tells me that he appreciates my time#12😄
"abolished". I would like to know DavidAZ's definition of that word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother D.
I am confident that DavidAZ will be along shortly to explain to you why none of the vile acts that you have highlighted above at #29 and committed by his god are not "wicked".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
6 months at least gives Miss Tradesecret a breather to not be so Bible stupid in front of the membership by trying in vain to address his Bible knowledge against her.
She will always be a Bible dunce. She is probably here under another name there were quite a few "new" members signed up here and all around the same time. So I wouldn't put anything past a person with narcissistic personality problems like the Reverend Tradesecret . Still, has Sidewinder to preen himself in front of and gasconade to, peacock fashion.🤣
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Well we can see above that melcharaz is having a taste of the real arrogant and haughty lying Reverend Tradesecret, Brother D.
All the same traits are there. The Reverend's self centred personality that is only overshadowed by his self-delusion of being of some higher authority which borders pathological. Lots of self-aggrandizing exposing his/her now infamous narcissistic personality.
I am sure melcharaz has realised that the Reverend Tradesecret does not respond well when his illusions of personal superiority are challenged.
And it appears that melcharaz has also come to the conclusion that the Reverend Tradescret is actually a woman/girl saying:
melcharaz wrote: I vote the latter because you are already trying to tell me what i think, ironically like an egotistical woman. idk if you are one or not, but you share that same arrogance as they.melcharaz wrote: I wont respond anymore to you until you seem open to what i have to say and stop acting like a know it all emotionally charged little girl who tells me what I think and believe#102
Well let's us not forget that the Reverend Tradesecret has admitted openly that he is a woman with a past of sexual deviancy. i.e putting it about.
I am just sorry that melcharaz has decided he doesn't want to play with the Reverend anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
The God of the old testament has always been considered good or righteous. He helps people when they cry out to him, he delivers his people in dire situations and even cares for a old widow woman during a drought. God can also be severe such as during Noah's flood, the judgement of the Egyptians in the Exodus and the punishment of the Judah and Israel in their exile. Even though God has been rough and severe, he always will bend an ear to those who call on them. He does care for his own but he will not tolerate insolence against his ways. God always gives the best to his people, but will be upset if it is not appreciated. He does command people to fear him, which is not an unusual position to be in when you are in authority. There are people in his plan that were "used" for his good that would seem that he doesn't care or regard the feelings of others just so He can get his way, but most do not recognize the lessons he is trying to teach or the training he is giving. There are times he executes judgement on others that may seem "wicked", but we don't know their whole story and sometimes why God had the judgement drawn.
"His people" and "his own". That will be his Holy chosen and treasured people ; Hebrew /Israelites?
“For you [Israel] are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” Deuteronomy 7:6 and Deuteronomy 14:2
"declares the Lord, “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.” Jeremiah 31:14.
Please do not waste your own or my time accusing me of "cherry picking" or having a "skewed position". These are direct quotes from god himself as written in the bible. They mean only one thing in any language; God had chosen a group of people and called them, his own, special, holy and "treasured possession".
Your god hated foreigners didn't he? That would be anyone that he didn't choose. Indeed your god hated anything that was foreign, as in the case of Arron's two son's murdered on the spot, no if's or but's because they used the wrong type ( foreign) of fire. Leviticus 10:1-3. I will admit the story on the face is as wicked as it is strange. As is the wicked but strange story of Uzzah.
And what's just as strange is the you tell us that :
DavidAZ Wrote: God knows our hearts but he cannot tell our future actions#79[Or was it;]DavidAZ Wrote: I believe that God can see every possible future depending on our actions.?#102
Or shall we simply take the words of the BIBLE on the matter?
" for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts” 1 Chronicles 28:9
Regardless. I can see this thread quickly turning into pages of whataboutery.
To your own definition of the word "wicked". I say " your own" because you didn't submit a source.
DavidAZ Wrote: [definition of wicked] I would say someone who hurts others, whether it's financial, spiritual, emotional, physical, for their own happiness or gain without the consideration or improvement of others, would be considered wicked. I.E. Murder, theft, vandalism, assaults#12
And what about a complete disregard for justice, truth, honesty, the righteous and righteousness?
As in the case of the sad and unexplainable story of Job being just one example.. But then people get murdered by god for telling the truth don't they?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Lets have your biblical definition of the word " wicked" and "good".
I will take up your post in the morning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
@DavidAZ
ludofl3x wtote: Can you perhaps define what you think the word "wicked" means in context, just so that when people are pulling bible passages, they're not wasting their time?DavidAZ wrote: As for wicked, I am leaving that to be defined by any poster as they see fit.
Stop it. This is your thread, it has the word "wicked" in its title. You should be able to define the word wicked and give us its BIBLICAL meaning!. We wouldn't want you to start redefining simple words once you find yourself on the back foot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Is Jesus god or is he not god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
The author of this thread, DavidAZ is being quite disingenuous/sly.
DavidAZ was supposed to start his own thread namely ""Other Aspects of God", which the title should explain itself.
I said I would gladly engage him should he ever decide to actually create his thread. The idea came about because I was highlighting the cruelty of god towards his own loyal and righteous servants with DavidAZ complaining with words to the effect that ;
I only concentrate on what I believe how vile and torturous god is towards his own devout, loyal and righteous servants and not "Other Aspects of God"
DavidAZ wrote: As for me grasping at straws, you fail to recognize any other aspects of the bible where God does deliver someone out of trouble, does help a widow, does revive a child and gives Job twice as much in the end of his affliction. You are only focused on the "bad" of God and will spit nails at anyone who says God is just, righteous or good to them. #108
I replied
Stephen wrote: I suggested he start his own thread explaining these "other aspects of god". #110
I have since reminded DavidAZ of his intentons to start his own thread a few times now and this is the result of what supposed to be his thread explaining his "Other Aspects of God"
So before we go any further on this thread (which some may suggest is "a call out" thread) I would like DavidAZ to reveal these "other aspects of god" as he intended to do in the first instance.
I will the be more than happy to engage him.
The floor is all yours, DavidAZ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
No I explained it rather well.See1. Jesus did not refuse himself, nor did God refuse Jesus because Jesus said "let [God] will be Done.So no matter how you spin it, God's will was to use Himself as sacrafice for humanaity. Which occurred.
I haven't had to "spin anything". You are doing all the spinning one minute you say Jesus is god and then he is not god and then he is god. And you are far too stupid to explain anything "well".
So Jesus isn't god then?
2. If you want to ignore that Jesus is not recieving anything from the angel, that's on you.
I haven't ignored anything. It was me that pointed out to you that an angle appeared and gave Jesus strength. I asked you why?
How am I to explain something that is felt when you have never felt it ?
You could try explaining it better than your own definition of the word "well".
Created: