Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It also confirms as I explained above. It appears that Islamic culture has been allowed to override UK law and nobody gives a fk including the UK Government that outlaws the practices of other foreign cultures.
This is why the British Empire collapsed. The Brits were not capable of following the laws of the lands they colonized.
Nothing to do with the topic in question. The point of this thread has been made clear for those that can actually read and understand what is written. See the bold underlined in my quote above
Or would you like it in italics too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
People pretend to be offended.
And there are those that pretend to be offended on behalf of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
This only confirms the Brits believe some animals have more rights than others.
It also confirms as I explained above. It appears that Islamic culture has been allowed to override UK law and nobody gives a fk including the UK Government that outlaws the practices of other foreign cultures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You are not very good at answering the question are you, Shila. You do realise that your chosen verses make nonsense of gods decision considering it was he that wanted his own chosen people to go free.WHY did he harden Pharaoh's heart. It is never ever explained. If god wanted his people freed so desperately why not just free them himself with a wave of his godly hand instead of having go betweens' racing back and forth demanding shite every day ? You cannot answer the question because there isn't any answer.Maybe you should leave it to the author of the OP Owen_T to take up the questions considering he invited the questions in the first place...... but I won't hold my breath.We cannot question God’s motives. Our knowledge is limited because Adam and Eve just got one bite each of the tree of knowledge.
oh FFS! So the second a difficult question is posed the response is - do not question god.
I shall answer it for you then shall I. And the answer is simple: The story is false. Neither Moses nor god freed the people. Pharaoh expelled them from his land because the were out populating the indigenous Egyptians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Why did an omnipotent god create anything at all?God created all things because it was good.
That doesn't answer the question of WHY he created anything in the first place.
How many times does God say it was good in Genesis?
I don't fkn care. It doesn't answer the question.
If god wanted Pharaoh to "let his people go" then why did god harden the heart of Pharaoh causing him to be stubborn and refuse to free those that were in so called "bondage"?Romans 9:17-18 declares, “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.” From a human perspective, it seems wrong for God to harden a person and then punish the person He has hardened. Biblically speaking, however, we have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23), and the just penalty for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Therefore, God’s hardening and punishing a person is not unjust; it is actually merciful in comparison to what the person deserves.
You are not very good at answering the question are you, Shila. You do realise that your chosen verses make nonsense of gods decision considering it was he that wanted his own chosen people to go free.
WHY did he harden Pharaoh's heart. It is never ever explained. If god wanted his people freed so desperately why not just free them himself with a wave of his godly hand instead of having go betweens' racing back and forth demanding shite every day ? You cannot answer the question because there isn't any answer.
Maybe you should leave it to the author of the OP Owen_T to take up the questions considering he invited the questions in the first place...... but I won't hold my breath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
What questions would you need answers to if you were to convert to Christianity?
Why did an omnipotent god create anything at all?
If god wanted Pharaoh to "let his people go" then why did god harden the heart of Pharaoh causing him to be stubborn and refuse to free those that were in so called "bondage"?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It is simply enough for me to know that the things He [Jesus] did [..........................]
What things did he- Jesus - do?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
So you agree then that for over the last 2000 years this celebration was a complete fabricated nonsense promulgated by the Christian Church.Yes. And by the "Christian Church" I would say it was the Roman Catholic church since it brought in tons of pagan religious rites into their ceremonies within the first centuries of their creation. There is a big difference from a Catholic and a first century Christian (not referring to modern technology, more of doctrine).
All branches have done that. Still, Christian is Christianity no matter which branch one may belong to.
Do you believe in the resurrection?
.
Which branch of Christianity are you claiming to belong today?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
we are not that far from knowing the truth
The hierarchy of church leaders more than likely have know about the alien/god connection for a few hundred if not a few thousand years D.
But they aren't going to give up their lucrative lives by telling the truth.
Look at this Renaissance art, D. I have had literature on this art going back nearly 50 years now.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
BTW, Jesus was NOT born on December 25th.
Point being that is the CHRISTIAN date of celebration for the birth of Jesus. So you agree then that for over the last 2000 years this celebration was a complete fabricated nonsense promulgated by the Christian Church.
Good lad.
I wonder what else they are guilty of fabricating and promulgated over the last 2000 years; the Resurrection perhaps?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
If Christians can prove that Jesus's resurrection really happened, then they can very much prove their religion.Jesus dying on cross is well documented, but what happened after his death is where disagreement lies. So is there good proof for resurrection?It is my contention that it doesn’t matter,.....
Well no would expect any different from a devout believer; only you appear to have forgotten that the whole point of Christian dogma and or it message of salvation rests totally on the belief in the resurrection.
John 11:25-26 King James Version
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As far as I can understand, some people claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death.
Then he didn't actually die then, BK.
Created:
Is resurrection true? What is the best evidence for it?
Did the three day old rotting stinking corpse of Jesus literally and physically rise from the dead? No.
Before the Christ there have been many dying and rising gods born of "virgins" but the one in particular that is awkward for Christians is the cult of Mithra; born of a virgin, in a stable on 25 December over 600 years before Christ!!!! Mithraism is an off-shoot of the more ancient Persian cult of Zoroaster which was introduced into the Roman Empire around 67 BC.
Philosopher Celsus critisised Christians for trying to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of pagan myths. He asked:
" Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique"? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to exclusion of the more comprehensive truths about god"
Indeed, and well said that man.
How could pagan myths which predate Christian beliefs about their god-man Jesus by hundreds if not thousands of years (in the case of Mesopotamian myths and legends) have so much in common with the life story of the' one and only saviour ' Jesus ?
Created:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I'm guessing you don't believe in the Trinity?
"the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" said Rabbi David Kimhi - " therefore, with reference to this god whom you call Father, Son and Holy Spirit, - that part which you call the Father must be prior to that which you call Son, for if they were always coexistent would have to be called twin brothers.
More over, if the Son is the Father what of Mary getting pregnant? Is this not an incestuous congregation? The Father has sex with the mother to conceive the Son who is also the Father.....so technically the Son, who is also the father, had sex with his mother"...
It's all very - Oedipus, isn't it ?
Oedipus c 450 BC, was a mythical Greek king of Thebes. A tragic hero in Greek mythology, Oedipus is believed to have fulfilled a prophecy (accidentally) that he would end up killing his father and marrying his mother, thereby bringing disaster to his city and family.
Created:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I have heard this passage many times and have read it myself. [......................................]Now, regarding Matthew 26:36-46, where Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus is not praying to Himself but to the Father.
I have read it too. And I didn't miss the part that clearly says: my Father. ergo Jesus is speaking to someone else.
Jesus' prayer is ultimately a prayer of submission: “Not my will, but yours be done.” Jesus’ willingness to accept the Father’s will, even in the face of immense suffering, demonstrates His perfect obedience and trust in the Father’s plan for salvation.
You do realise in your quote above that Jesus -in your own words - that you have clearly pointed out that Jesus is speaking to someone else.
Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane is not an instance of Him praying to Himself but rather an expression of His relationship with the Father.
Exactly my point. Such is the ridiculousness of the trinity.
Created:
-->
@Mall
@CatholicApologetics
And in the Garden when Jesus prays to ..... himself !?
Matthew 26:36-46
36 Then Jesus went with the disciples to a place called Gethsemane. He said to them, “Stay here while I go over there and pray.”
37 He took Peter and Zebedee’s two sons with him. He was beginning to feel deep anguish. 38 Then he said to them, “My anguish is so great that I feel as if I’m dying. Wait here, and stay awake with me.”
39 After walking a little farther, he quickly bowed with his face to the ground and prayed, “Father, if it’s possible, let this cup of suffering be taken away from me. But let your will be done rather than mine.”.......
42 Then he went away a second time and prayed, “Father, if this cup cannot be taken away unless I drink it, let your will be done.”
44 After leaving them again, he went away and prayed the same prayer a third time.
Luke. And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Yes, he was so terrified of dying that he sweated blood and his prayer - to himself - went unanswered. Not a word of comfort from himself... to himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Best. Korea wrote @ Tradesecret: So when the lord says a day are we to read (not to forget) this to mean 1000 years?
2 Peter 3:8-9
King James Version
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Yes BK. That is what it says and what it means. But don't expect the bible dunce Reverend Tradesecret to agree with what the BIBLE itself says. He'll contradict the word of his god when it suites his own narrative and interpretation.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Or he's come to his senses.Right, like buying Twitter and changing its name to X.The value of the company is down 70% according to Fidelity.
And you are telling me this because?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wasn't Musk "naturally" a Barack Hussain Obama supporter and donator, once?Yes he was. And now he’s a MAGA MORON. It’s a sickness really. Alcoholics were once not alcoholics too.
Or he's come to his senses.
And you spelled Hussein wrong genius
I agree it should have been - Insane Obama.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Elon Musk is a weird guy. So naturally he is a Trump supporter
Wasn't Musk "naturally" a Barack Hussain Obama supporter and donator, once?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
'tampon Tim'. What's that all about, Greyparrot? 😂He made policies to ensure tampons would be available in male teen bathrooms, because government cares about "trans rights" or something.
Well deserved then. 😂 I can't see any man living that down. No matter what his title is or becomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
'tampon Tim'. What's that all about, Greyparrot? 😂
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
he likes to make sure that the neighbours cats don't get me.
So the local pussy have taken a shine to you then , Vic?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Up late , Vic. Hope your are both well and Shep is doing his job and watching over you.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Tradesecret wrote @ WyIted. For Israel to regain the theological rights back to the place that God promised to Abraham and Moses and David, etc, Israel needs to repent of its sin and unfaithfulness towards God. It did so in the OT. You can read about it in Daniel 9 on one occasion. You can read about it in Nehemiah And Ezra on other occasions. It was only after their repentance - did God give the legal and theological grounds for their return.
Such a skewed version of biblical history of how the Israelites returned to their god given homeland. It needs to be remembered that when they were taken into "captivity", strangely, many Jews prospered through the experience and education they received from the Babylonians and their children in particular who went to schools and that had adopted Akkadian names . And many decided to remain in Babylon. It was a King of Persia that released them from "captivity" and what was more strange is that on their return to "Zion" they weren't welcomed by their own people, that would be those that remained in their god given homeland after the so called "captivity". If, as the bible dunce says, god had taken away the right of the Jews to call Judah their home and had no claim "either legal and theological" then how come hundreds and thousand remained?
When we actually look at this so called "captivity" it was nothing less than a migration and deportation for employment. The captivity in Babylon is presented as a punishment for disobedience to God in a similar way to the presentation of Israelite "slavery" in Egypt followed by deliverance which neither in both cases doesn't appear to be true. And when the surface is scratched on both these BIBLICAL versions of these "captivity "stories , they don't quite add up when the biblical versions are looked at closely.
For instance the bible states that the Egyptians were in fear that they were being out numbered by the growing population of Hebrews and so Pharaoh "enslaved" them. There are a few reasons this story is unreliable. First, the bible states that the Hebrews went to Egypt voluntarily because of famine in their land. Genesis 12:10
Second, who knows what Pharaoh would have done had god not intervened and "hardened the heart Pharaoh and made him stubborn". Exodus 9:12 If he wanted "his people" to be free why even bother making Pharaoh stubborn by purposeful hardening his heart? Why would Pharaoh refuse to "let them go" if he feared them and the fate of his country and people.?
So these two verses don't add up at all. It was more likely that as with the case of people to Babylonia where the Hebrews were expelled from Egypt by Pharaoh because the Hebrew nation was outnumbering the Egyptian population and the caused Pharaoh to fear an uprising and takeover of his country and its people..
Regardless.
What I find most interesting is that it appears that "the Lord" appears to have reset time itself. ie the heavenly clock was reset, Exodus 12:1-2 and for reasons that I explained many times on this forum.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
So Ill correct that bible dunce for you, Wylted.That's much better than I would have done, I was just going to call him a cuck
Well, for him to say: "I don't think the Jews have any natural or theological right to the land they claim as their own" , he has contradicted that which the god of the bible clearly states numerous times, but he is far too dense to realise it.
I feel so sorry for all those University students that he claims he tutors...... and charges for the pleasure.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Tradesecret wrote @WyIted: I don't think the Jews have any natural or theological right to the land they claim as their own.
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ from a man of God that claims to have been
" taught to memorise the bible from an early age" and claims to know it" backwards and forwards in ancient languages"!!!!?
So Ill correct that bible dunce for you, Wylted.
Just some examples of some 30+ verses where the god of the BIBLE clearly has given the Israelites/ Jews the land.
Deuteronomy 1:8
New International Version. See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.”
And we have supporting BIBLICAL evidence of this from Joshua:
Joshua 21:43
New International Version So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors, and they took possession of it and settled there.
And from Ezekiel
New International Version 36:28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God.
And from Jeramiah
Jeremiah 30:3 New International Version
The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their ancestors to possess,’ says the Lord.”
" memorise the bible" my arse. The man is a fkn great giant joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the original word of god was not communicated in englishIt wasn't communicated in Greek either. Which appears to be your approved language of choice when it come to the translation of scripture. Strange that.And of course, like all believers that believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning the translation on the bible you have fallen into you own trap of consigning all bibles written in English to the rubbish bin..... without realising it. The Reverend Tradesecret made a habit of doing it.I created a thread on this very subject HERE> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7170-may-they-just-as-well-condemn-the-bible-to-the-skipStating:There are those that I have met that believe the Bible to be clear and concise in its presentation and self evidently true and without any ambiguity whatsoever in the way it has come down to us. Until of course they are posed a few simple questions which usually arise not just frequently from the Bible but just as frequent from their own commentary, and when pressed on such it appears that these very same people will resort to the default that one must understand Greek or Hebrew to even begin to understand a Bible that is written in English! But by saying so they do not seem to understand that they have, in just a few words, rendered the Bible written in English redundant, pointless and unreliable as any kind of “witness” source to the life and times of the Christ.So is there at all any point to reading, never mind studying the Bible written in English? A Bible that those who have said that is clear and concise but suddenly insist that the Bible is fathomable and understandable only when one is tutored, trained and learned in the ancient Greek or Hebrew languages?
was an eternal flaming hell created exclusively for the new testament ?
Define "an eternal flaming hell" for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the original word of god was not communicated in english
It wasn't communicated in Greek either. Which appears to be your approved language of choice when it come to the translation of scripture. Strange that.
And of course, like all believers that believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning the translation on the bible you have fallen into you own trap of consigning all bibles written in English to the rubbish bin..... without realising it. The Reverend Tradesecret made a habit of doing it.
I created a thread on this very subject HERE> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7170-may-they-just-as-well-condemn-the-bible-to-the-skip
Stating:
There are those that I have met that believe the Bible to be clear and concise in its presentation and self evidently true and without any ambiguity whatsoever in the way it has come down to us. Until of course they are posed a few simple questions which usually arise not just frequently from the Bible but just as frequent from their own commentary, and when pressed on such it appears that these very same people will resort to the default that one must understand Greek or Hebrew to even begin to understand a Bible that is written in English! But by saying so they do not seem to understand that they have, in just a few words, rendered the Bible written in English redundant, pointless and unreliable as any kind of “witness” source to the life and times of the Christ.
So is there at all any point to reading, never mind studying the Bible written in English? A Bible that those who have said that is clear and concise but suddenly insist that the Bible is fathomable and understandable only when one is tutored, trained and learned in the ancient Greek or Hebrew languages?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am sure - eternal - in any language means the same thing. But you are welcome to play semantics if it makes you feel better.
I agree, but ETERNAL Judgment would mean to be judged ETERNALY. And I would say to be judged forever and eternally would be TORTURE.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction"even at face-valuethis seems to be suggesting "destruction" that will never be repaired.
Yes, it must be torture to be destroyed forever and enteral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
nowhere in the bible does it say souls will be tortured foreverWell unless you are word playing on the word- Soul/s; there are a few mentions here of everlasting torture?Hebrews 6:2 Revelation 20:10 Matthew 25:46 Daniel 12:22 Thessalonians 1:9in other words the one who claims to be a prophet of the almighty (claims to speak for YHWH)will be tortured for a very long time
"The one" could mean anyone or the many and or those (plural) that do claims to speak for YHWH. example; those that claim to be chosen by god to speak for god.
Hebrews 6:2 "eternal judgment.". Meaning of eternal in English = lasting forever or for a very long time:
Revelation 20:10 " shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever".
Matthew 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"
Daniel 12:2 " and some to shame and everlasting contempt".
2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction"
Matthew 12:32 "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come".
All the above suggest an eternity to me, 3RU7AL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
nowhere in the bible does it say souls will be tortured forever
Well unless you are word playing on the word- Soul/s; there are a few mentions here of everlasting torture?
Hebrews 6:2
Revelation 20:10
Matthew 25:46
Daniel 12:2
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I had assumed we were initially talking about the message of the Bible.
"we"?
Stop it! You attempted to divert to "the message" only once your own contradictions had been pointed out to you by me. Your claim of "the message" didn't even enter the dialogue until YOU mentioned it HERE> #11
As for the title of your threat, Validity of the Bible,
I'll assume you mean thread? And once again you fail to take in whose THREAD this is and who authored it although I have clearly pointed both out to you.
once again I would assume you are talking about its message.
I gave you absolutely no reason to assume that.
The question "Is the Bible true or false?"
Nope there is no question to the title , Go see for yourself. The question/s come in the OP. Please learn to read what it is that you actually intend to comment on.
rephrased as "Is what the Bible claims, like the resurrection, true or false?"
Wrong again. The OP, unless he wants to clarify further, appears to be content that the resurrection is valid because he makes the point of saying; " Gra[n]ted, there is evidence for Christianity and the resurrection" #1. Which I may challenge him on later.
Ultimately I answered two different questions for your understanding.
I understood perfectly both the TITLE and the two part question posed by the OP. I had no misunderstanding whatsoever. I also know that I am not the author of this thread, whereas , you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
As I suspected from the beginning. You would be, and are, full of contradiction/s.I have remained steadfast in the beliefs I have been trying to communicate with you.
You are even now contradicting you own statements.
You have, on one hand claimed the bible is without flaws, while on the other have admitted to there actually being flaws i.e. mistakes: human mistakes and on a few occasions now. Its all there for anyone following the thread to see for themselves. And in very typical apologist fashion, you have attempted to divert from your original claim concerning as you say "the perfect and flawless words of the bible" and are attempting to make this thread about "the message", of which the OP mentions nothing.
I guess we had a different understanding of the question
DID YOU NOT READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD?
Here you go;
Validity of the Bible
Author Owen_T
You see, nothing either in the title nor the op that asks about, comments about or even touches on "the message".
There are elements you can consider to be human flaws (such as grammatical mistakes).#38
I am glad it was you that wrote that. You do realise the massive implications of what you have written there, don't you?
I shall await Owen-T' return
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I guess I may have misunderstood the question then. If you ask me how much of the Bible on a literal and surface level, then I think there are many human flaws. However, those flaws do not translate to the corruption of the message. I believe the Bible is true, but it has also been written through humans, and thus it contains human elements and mistakes. But I do not believe that these human mistakes in the Bible invalidate its divine inspiration or authority.I hope this answers the question once and for all.
As I suspected from the beginning. You would be, and are, full of contradiction/s.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Created:
Posted in:
Yes well we are not discussing "the message" at this stageOwen asked me how much of the Bible I believe is the Word of God, I answered. I have been talking about the Bible's message since the beginning.
Well that's not accurate is it? He didn't ask about the "message" the bible conveys at all. He simply asked a 2 part question. HERE>
Owen_T wrote: The question is, how much of the bible do you think is the actual word of god, and how much of it do you think is flawed by the workings of man?#1
You replied:
"I believe the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God".#4 <<<< and in your entire reply at that stage, you hadn't even mentioned the message
You did though attempt to divert to the "message" but only when you responded to me some 11 posts later HERE> #11 saying:
CatholicApologetics wrote: "I do not think any part of the Bible is flawed by the workings of man, at least in the message it conveys".
SO, regardless of all that:
Which authors were "illiterate"?There were many illiterate authors. Notably: Moses, Amos, and many of Jesus' apostles, such as Peter.
Ok, lets take the apostles. You have mentioned Peter aka Simon which other of the 12 were "illiterate"? And why do you say they were "illiterate"?
Which authors made which spelling mistakes?Letters attributed to Paul (who was literate), like those to the Corinthians or Ephesians, contain spelling and grammatical differences in various manuscripts. For instance, the spelling of certain Greek words.
So the above mentioned works are flawed and remain flawed, then?
So then it is not flawless and without mistakes as you have claimed a few times now, then?The Bible, being the Word of God, is flawless and without fault. You keep asking the same question. I feel as if I have to tell you that since the beginning,
Well that will be because you have, on one hand claimed the bible is without flaws, while on the other have admitted to there actually being flaws i.e. mistakes. It is You that have caused the confusion. Either the bible holds mistakes or it doesn't?
I have not been talking about superficial things like grammatical mistakes. I'm sure, in his original question, Owen was asking me how much of the Bible I believed was the Word of God with the intent to focus on the message.
Well that remains to be seen. You have asked him for examples of the contradictions that he's mentioned and offered to "take them up" HERE>#4. he hasn't got back to you on those yet as he hasn't even mentioned "the message".
Meaning by that, that he was asking me how much of the Bible's message was corrupted.
[A] Maybe. But that is for Owen to make clear because he mentions nothing about the "corrupted message", does he?
The reason I say this is because before asking his question, Owen was primarily talking about things he deemed morally reprehensible (such as slavery and condemnation), relating to the Bible's message.
See [A] above. And in my opinion, Owen has simply pointed to and highlighted what he finds uncomfortable about the bible, indeed he says some things are "unbelievable stories" although he claims that there is "evidence for the resurrection". #1<< on which I will maybe challenge him on.
I am still hoping that Owen will produce the "contradictions" he mentions and I am looking forward to your replies to which you say that you "will happily take them up". HERE>> #4
If you'd like I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion with you in private messages.Well no. You have joined a conversation on the open religion forum to discuss religion, which to my knowledge includes the BIBLE, god and Jesus in its entirety.Indeed, you have taken the time and responded in some depth to Owen_T #4 openly. Why do you wish to treat me any different?To me, and I apologize if I'm wrong, it feels as if you have some preconceptions about the Bible that I'd love to discuss.
I see. "Preconceptions" you say. I shall watch this- Owen-T's - thread developed and your responses in particular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
So I am clear on your claim, are you saying then that the bible is entirely flawless as it has came down to us through the millennia and that man had no part in its authorship?I believe the message conveyed in the Bible is pure and intact, and that it has not been corrupted by man.
Yes well we are not discussing "the message" at this stage. And I know what you only believe: you have expressed this a few times now.
However, some of the authors of the Bible were illiterate and made spelling mistakes.
Which authors were "illiterate"?
Which authors made which spelling mistakes?
These mistakes do not interfere with the overall message of the Scriptures.
So then it is not flawless and without mistakes as you have claimed a few times now, then?
If you'd like I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion with you in private messages.
Well no. You have joined a conversation on the open religion forum to discuss religion, which to my knowledge includes the BIBLE, god and Jesus in its entirety.
Indeed, you have taken the time and responded in some depth to Owen_T #4 openly. Why do you wish to treat me any different?
Created:
Posted in:
Owen_T wrote: #1 and how much of it [THE BIBLE] do you think is flawed by the workings of man?So do you have an answer for that above?
CatholicApologetics wrote: Like I said, by saying the Bible is God's Word in its entirety, it implies there are no flaws by the workings of man. In other words, I do not think any part of the Bible is flawed by the workings of man, at least in the message it conveys.#11
So I am clear on your claim, are you saying then that the bible is entirely flawless as it has came down to us through the millennia and that man had no part in its authorship?
FLAWLESS:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
And you are saying that mankind had no part in the bible's creation whatsoever?The questions asks whether I think man has flawed the Bible, not whether they were involved in its creation.
Owen_T wrote: #1 and how much of it [THE BIBLE] do you think is flawed by the workings of man?
So do you have an answer for that above?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Owen_T asked :[ P1]How much of the bible do I think is the actual Word of God, [P2] and how much of it do I think is flawed by the workings of man?CatholicApologetics wrote: I believe the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God.It was a two part question. Or did you miss or forget what you wrote?If the Bible is completely the Word of God it implies that there are no faults or flaws by the workings of man.
IF? Sounds like doubt to me, unless of course you have lost track of the thread already.
And you are saying that mankind had no part in the bible's creation whatsoever?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Owen_T asked :[ P1]How much of the bible do I think is the actual Word of God, [P2] and how much of it do I think is flawed by the workings of man?CatholicApologetics wrote: I believe the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God.
It was a two part question. Or did you miss or forget what you wrote?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Owen_T wrote @ CatholicApologetics: You seem very knowledgeable in your religion, and I would really appreciate your educated opinion.
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!? How do you conclude that? He's made only one post which amounted to ONLY 12 words HERE> #24 and a second post just only a few seconds ago HERE>> #4 and created no topics?
Seems to me this is a case of one person/Pastor asking questions and the same person/Pastor answering them.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You do realise that the fruit thing was a metaphor?Made up by a bloke, who was told not to play with his willy, or anyone else's for that matter.And not to keep dressing up in his sister's fig leaves.Don't know who told him this, but who ever it was, was a hypocrite.
Nice.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Going to hell after being turned to ashes would be like a walk in the park.
😁😂
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Take a look at what tradesecret wrote:
tradesecret wrote: if people are burning in Hell, then they deserve to be there and be tortured forever#5
I find these words rather sick. Its like Tradesecret is trying to make Christianity look even worse.
Indeed, BK. You can just feel the love and forgiveness oozing from the Pastor and Chaplain of compassion. The man that claims to have been chosen by god himself. He must have forgotten that Jesus HIMSELF descended into hell to save those sinners. Jesus must have been of the belief that they didn't deserve to be there.
I keep telling you, he's a lying , fraudulent bible dunce.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Best.Korea wrote @ Tradesecret: You wrote so much, yet didnt refute anything I said. Your delusions are trully great.
That is because after two thousand years of Christians talking about heaven and the years that the Reverend Tradesecret has spent preaching to his congregation of over 300, lecturing and tutoring students about all things god, Jesus and the bible including heaven, both they and he simply can't tell us anything factually about it.
He asked you : "how would you know about heaven and hell"?#5, then proceeded to tell us this:
Tradesecret wrote: "Heaven is not about enjoying yourself anyway. Heaven is not a holiday resort".#5
You should ask , then how does he know? And if its neither a "holiday resort" and "not a place to enjoy ourselves", then what is its purpose?
Created:
-->
@Owen_T
Korea actually has a point with this one. Heaven also sounds incredibly boring and pointless.
One of the questions that I have posed a few times here on this forum has been - heaven, then what? What happens then? What's the point of heaven?
Do we spend all our time staring down from the sky at the suffering peasants and sinners below for the rest of eternity? Christians have had over 2000 years to give an answer to this question but have remained silent.
Jesus to the Rebel hanging next to him:
Luke 23:43 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
What then? Is it resting at gods knees staring up at him doe eyed for all eternity. We can glean from this I suppose that heaven and or paradise is a place.... and that's it.
At least Islam tells its adherents that they will be getting 70 virgins to keep them occupied. Although, they won't be virgins for long, will they? And it makes no mention of what the women will be getting to keep them occupied for eternity?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Go back and read your post #22Go back and read your post #20. Just responding to your post.
I know, by telling lies.
So here you go. It's on display just in one passage.
Nope. Wrong again, Tradesecret.. Off you go know.
Created: