Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Addressing your wanting and ever so feeble post #170 one question or refutation at a time at your feeble request;Since your sophomoric mental state can only handle one question from me at a time, as embarrassingly shown in your link herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337/post-links/317719 I will honor your flustering request to not embarrass you all at once with more than one question or refutation in one post of mine at a time, okay? Therefore, I will take each one of your insipid refutations and/or my questions to you, and make a separate post for them in the hopes that this action will help your child like modus operandi in being just too scared to address them all at once, okay? You’re welcomed dear.
Excellent Brother, you have surprised the entire forum by acknowledging you are a flitter and desire to do something about it. I know it is only the first step, but it shows some promise. After all, until you admit you have a problem you can't get the help you so obviously need. So thank you for at least attempting to get back with the program. One topic - question at a time.
YOUR QUOTE ONCE AGAIN IN NOT ADDRESSING YOUR WOMANHOOD AS SHOWN IN YOUR BIOGRAPHY: Firstly, Brother Fake persona, I am not a woman.Barring my alleged fake persona that owns your Bible stupidity outright, you have yet to put this proposition where you say that you are not a woman to rest, and the ramifications thereof pertaining to Timothy 2:12, other than to run away from it as continually shown in the link below, understood WOMAN? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337/post-links/317522Dear Miss Tradesecret, therefore, I have shown your biography in where your gender is a FEMALE herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy Therefore, please tell the membership in why you are not a woman like you say, when your bio says that you are! BEGIN:
Nevertheless, it looks like you still are having problems discerning between religious and personal questions. Ask me a religious question not one related to a personal situation, ok. Are you able to cope with that distinction? I know it will be hard for you. But asking me about my sexuality is not a religious question. It is personal - and in your case it is not necessary because I have answered it before by denying I am a female. And secondly, I have asked you to stop referring to it, again your tendency is towards bullying and stalking and Attacking when it is in fact more pleasant to discuss the religious questions. I understand that someone of your standing has no capacity to ACTUALLY discuss the religious which is why you continue to be personal in your questions - but even you should be aware now that you come across like a fruit loop - pretty close to young Stephen the stalker.
So just to be crystal clear. If you want me to engage with you - in a helpful way - then ask religious questions. And not questions relating to me personally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well Stephen you are not normally so dumb. But I suppose there is a precedence for your foolishness.
USA, the UK and Australia have different communities - and therefore quite reasonably - they have different statistics. Are you able to deny this and prove that people in Australian prisons are 99% religious and 1% not? Or are you going to admit that you just recklessly applied the figures by FLRW without doing any research, showing everyone just how STUPID you are - or GULLIBLE you are?
I know you don't want to accept the truth - but most people at court - deny they believe in God. They fund that an amusing question when I ask them - as I do - because I am trying to consider how best to deal with them.
In Australian prisons - I can't speak for others. people defend themselves. We have Christian people go in and speak to them. But mostly, they won't even talk about God unless it will help them get out. This is AUSTRALIA. Most convicts are ATHEIST. Prove me wrong, weasel.
Created:
-->
@Bones
And let me reiterate something else. God does not want people to burn in Hell either.Yet he chooses to send them there? God is omnipotent I'm sure he had other options.I suppose if you prefer that God shouldn't believe in justice and he shouldn't worry about telling lies nor in giving people the opportunity to do the right thing then that might make senseYour supposition is incorrect. What part of making homosexuals burn for eternity is a contribution to justice?
Stop being so narrow minded. You tried to reason by omnipotence. You think power is the only thing that needs to be considered. But it is not. I've already told you this is not about homosexuality. It is about treason. Rebellion. That is the issue. There is more in this universe at stake than simply one narrow issue. Don't get so locked into it that you forget your humanity,
There is not one person in Hell just because they are a homosexual. And nor is there one person in Heaven just because they are a heterosexual. I take the view that there are heterosexuals in Hell and there are homosexuals in heaven.What do you make of verses such as "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." What part of a man lying with a man is an abomination?You're playing with words here, I'll make it as plain as possible - is there a person in Heaven who opening and freely "commits" homosexuality?
Nope. Not playing with words. This is one verse amongst thousands. The entire context of the bible is about treason against God. It is not about homosexuality. You are fixated on one narrow issue. It is from the Christians point of view - a very little issue. No offence meant. The world might be obsessed with homosexuality at the moment - but neither is history, Christianity or God. There are literally thousands of different sins, slavery, adultery, abortion, drug addition, abuse, etc etc. but sins are only the fruit of a much more important issue. Rebellion against God. So no I am not playing with words - for me - the issue is much bigger than one small issue in the scale of things.
Are their homosexuals in Heaven more worried about themselves - than they are about praising God? I doubt it. To even ask that question - demonstrates persuasively that you have never understood Christianity, To be born again - is to recognize that life is not about me - but about God. For the ordinary human this seems like arrogance - but for the independent observer it is about truth.
We have made a choice - and since he tells the truth and is not a liar or vindictive but just we are sentenced and judged according to our desires.Homosexuals don't make a choice in becoming homosexuals.
Well you need to come and live in the real world for just a little while. The ordinary view today is that people's views about sexual orientation is fluid. Harry Potter's creator has been canceled because she believes in feminism and not fluidity. People are not born homosexual or heterosexual. They are whatever they think they are at whatever time of the day they think they are. This is the most modern view on the subject.
Me, I object to fluidity. I think science trumps feelings. Facts over emotions I say. Yes, I know that is anti- modern thinking and likely to lead me to getting canceled. but I do think that a man is a man and female is a female. But more than that I go even further. I think people choose to be homosexual, Yes, cancel me if you so choose. Let me qualify that. When people do not have a measure of objective truth, anything will do. I personally experimented with various so called sexual activities when I was younger. I had no objective way to understand me. Go with the flow, Go with what makes you feel good. And so I experienced various different manners of sexuality. (Stephen will read this and use it against me - I care more for discussing this issue that the revolting impacts that will be used against me) I thought for a long time in school that I was gay. It was only later that I realized the false sense of this.
Homosexuality is not a simple thing. It is quite complex.
I amend my prior statement - if I were an omnipotent being I would not create a deterministic world in which the "sins" of people are necessary events.Ok. But you are not God. And for whatever reason God preferred to love and give people an opportunity to freely love him back. He didn't want robots.False equivalence. God, being all powerful, could have created free creatures who always chose to love him. Consider the following proof.
Nonsense. God is all powerful - but you in your puny human way do not get to determine what that is. Otherwise it is not all powerful. And furthermore I reject your argument. Why? Where do you get the idea GOd could have done such a thing? When in fact the only evidence we have is the exact opposite? Are you now rejecting the evidence on the basis of your own imagination?
p1. All humans have free willp2. With said free will, people display degrees to which people are moral and immoral.c1. Someone free people are more moral than others.c2. It is possible that someone has free will and only chooses to do good.c3. God, being omnipotent, therefore could have created an individual described in c2.c4. If c3, then God could have created free creates who only choose to do good.
I always qualify free will. Free will only means choice. It does not automatically mean freedom to do the right thing. Reformed people - people who believe in the total sovereignty of God - will say how can any person have any free will in the same universe who controls all things? Great question.
My personal view is that each of your arguments p1 - p4 are flawed. Why?
What is free will? You don't explain that.
Hence p 2 makes no sense at all. It is just you making an assertion without any argument or reason to believe. Without disrespecting your point, what is morality? who determines such a morality? And who determines it so called opposite? Applying a modern standard to morality in a society which embraces fluidity makes no sense. Moral then becomes - whatever I think is moral is ok.
c1 becomes even less meaningful.
c2 respectfully goes against everything I believe. I didn't choose God. And the bible says the same thing. He chooses us. We NEVER choose him.
c3 omnipotence is not the supreme characteristic. Perhaps in a world where the biggest muscles or the biggest army or the biggest gun is considered wonderful this thing might be what people think about. But God is about holiness. Quite a different concept. Atheists a general rule don't get this. They focus on omnipotence or omniscience, Understandable because of the modern situation - but totally misses the point. Having the biggest dick is not something God cares about.
Furthermore, do you believe God has free will?Follow up, do you believe God can only do good?
Well yes and yes. Thanks for the easy questions.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
I hope you do not remain so stupid and full of supernatural beliefs.
so curiously, you are totally just a materialist then?
I hope you recognize that a genocidal god is a real prick.
I haven't seen a genocidal god, but I guess if one existed then it would be sensible to find out why they are genocidal rather than just calling them names.
Moral people do, but I guess that that is not you.
Moral? What is moral? Are there objective morals or just the subjective ones in your own mind?
Let me know if you want to chat on morals, instead of your stupid belief in the supernatural.
I'm happy to chat about most things. But given that we are a religious forum, it seems that supernatural is one of the topics that will come about. I think it is ironic that like to talk about the supernatural if only to dismiss it and call it stupid but then get all emotional if someone else happens to say something positive about it.
Curious really!!!
I wonder what has happened to you to make you become so cynical?
Created:
-->
@Bones
Do you think that any judge actually wants someone to be put in prison?I amend my prior statement - if I were an omnipotent being I would not create a deterministic world in which the "sins" of people are necessary events.
Ok. But you are not God. And for whatever reason God preferred to love and give people an opportunity to freely love him back. He didn't want robots.
I prefer to be human - and to suffer the consequences of my actions - than be a robot without the ability to choose to love God or hate him.
Created:
-->
@Bones
And let me reiterate something else. God does not want people to burn in Hell either.Yet he chooses to send them there? God is omnipotent I'm sure he had other options.
I suppose if you prefer that God shouldn't believe in justice and he shouldn't worry about telling lies nor in giving people the opportunity to do the right thing then that might make sense. Yet, I think using the word choose is the incorrect one. I take the view that people choose to reject God - knowing that this means consequences. Just like people choosing not to take a vaccine has implications. I also take the view that omnipotence is not the primary attribute of God's character. I think holiness is much more important.
Do you think that any judge actually wants someone to be put in prison?Yes. If I were a judge, I would want to put harmful people who commit heinous crimes into prison.i'll rephrase again does God freely choose to send people who outwardly express their homosexualilty through physical acts to Hell and is the morally just?
I have said it before but I will repeat it again. There is not one person in Hell just because they are a homosexual. And nor is there one person in Heaven just because they are a heterosexual. I take the view that there are heterosexuals in Hell and there are homosexuals in heaven. God does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, creed, wealth, skills, education, or intelligence. Yet some people will go to Hell and some will go to Heaven according to the Bible.
It would be totally moral and just for every person to go to Hell for rebellion / treason against the God of the universe. He made us and he can destroy us. He told us the rules. And the consequences. We told him to jam it. So he is not choosing to send us there. We have made a choice - and since he tells the truth and is not a liar or vindictive but just we are sentenced and judged according to our desires.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I don't want gays to burn in Hell. What a load of nonsense. I don't want anyone to burn in Hell.Let me rephrase - you want homosexual couples who engage in sex to burn in hell
Well let me respond once again. Nonsense. I don't want anyone to burn in Hell including homosexual couples who engage in sex.
And let me reiterate something else. God does not want people to burn in Hell either.
And although that sounds strange to the cynical. Do you think that any judge actually wants someone to be put in prison? Or do you think that judges especially righteous judges would prefer for people to do the right thing?
I want that everyone everywhere loves God and to enjoy his blessings.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The gospel; those will be the words and teachings of Jesus?
Well, that would be one simplistic way of looking at it. I take the view that the entire Bible - both OT and NT are the gospel. All the words, from beginning to the end.
But I also take the view that the gospel may well just be referring to the fact that Jesus died and rose again.
Or John 3:16 is another way to express the gospel.
It really depends on the context.
In my paragraph above - I was talking about all of the above. Preaching the gospel is promoting Jesus and his kingdom - proclaiming the truth about humanity's sin and hopelessness. Proclaiming the truth about Jesus' righteousness. Proclaiming the FACT that all will be judged, including the devil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
First things first, since you are in discussion with men within this forum, therefore you go directly against Jesus' command in Timothy 2:12 since you are explicitly shown to be a woman in this link; https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and where YOU are therefore not to usurp the authority, nor teach, but to remain silent when around men within this forum!
Firstly, Brother Fake persona, I am not a woman. Secondly, We are not in church. Thirdly, Even if we were in church, this command is not for females to be silent per se - it does not prevent singing, praying, nor speaking to their children. It is a command only to those in the higher levels shouting down to the lower levels - thus causing disruption. Since at the time - it was only woman and their children upstairs - and all the men were down with the rest of the men, there was no need to tell the men to stop disrupting.
With the above TRUTH being said regarding your continued biblical ignorance relative to the wants of Jesus the Christ shown above, and if this wasn't embarrassing enough for you, then you once again left out the main premise in your wanting post #166 of Jesus commanding that any offspring that curse their parents should die! As if this biblical axiom is going to disappear for you, of which at your continued expense, it will not!: “For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” (Matthew 15:4)
I think anyone who curses their parents has done the wrong thing. It is to suggest that parents are permitted to be harmed by their children. The harsher the penalty, the more serious the crime. Obviously, you think cursing your parents is nothing to worry about. God has a different view and so do I. The words "Must surely" I have also explained in another place is - a covenantal phraze. In the Hebrew the words if translated woodenly, would say "dying, you shall die". In other words, you are already dying because of your actions, this will bring you to full death. Now the proper response from you is "oink oink".
Simply answer the following questions:1. Tell us, why are you so SCARED to show Jesus as an accomplice in murdering the offspring that curse their parents in Matthew 15:4?
What is there to be fearful off. The Bible believes in the death penalty. So does the USA. Nevertheless, the death penalty is not murder. Abortion is. But the death penalty is not. It is the legal killing of a person by the state. Jesus agrees with the proper and lawful killing of people who break the law in certain circumstances. Matthew 15:4 also does not have any one getting killed, does it?
2. Do you agree with Jesus' biblical axiom of murdering offspring that curse their parents?
Well I agree with Jesus - but not with your portrayal of it. Murder for instance is an unlawful killing of another person. The death penalty is the lawful killing of another person. I also note that this is not an axiom. It is a legislative provision and it was also culturally relevant to the nation of Israel.
3. If you have offspring, God forbid if you do, and they cursed you, would you murder them in the name of Jesus' command to do so in Matthew 15:4? And if not, where do you get the authority to usurp Jesus' command in this respect?!
Again, wrong. God does not command any one to murder anyone. In fact God says murder is wrong. See the 6th commandment. Jesus never asks any one to murder. He does ask his people to lawfully carry out any sentence imposed that would uphold the law and meet justice. Hence an eye for an eye. And a tooth for a tooth. Not an eye for a tooth or a tooth for an eye. Equal punishment for equal crimes. Justice has to be seen to be done.
I don't disagree with God. I disagree with your very dodgy and uninformed view. The bible contradicts your faulty and fake interpretation.
Whoops, I am sorry, damn it, but I asked more than one question at this juncture to you! Since you stated that obviously you can't handle more than one question from me at a time, as embarrassingly shown in this link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337/post-links/317599 can you at least "try" and answer the 2nd and 3rd one to hurry this discussion along at your continued expense? Or, if need be, I can help you answer the additional questions because I am also here to help the mentally challenged of the JUDEO-Christian Bible like you fully represent within this forum ad infinitum, okay? You can thank me later.
Brother fake persona, the reason I asked you to give one question at a time is so that we don't distracted by your typical Mormon responses. Whenever I pin you to the floor, you roll over and find something else to talk about. You don't like to stick to one topic for too long since as soon I start to respond you panic and ask me about something else - distraction distraction distraction is your motto. Never stick with one subject. Flit from one to the next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
the Bible is from God and worthy of being read by itself without the distortion of othersSo can it be taken literally then?
Are you asking me to explain this again?
If we are using the word "literal" it is used in contrast to the allegorical or mystical point of view. In other words, do we take the words that are written at face value - v a mystical understanding of them.
Face Value does not mean without context, understanding who the author is, who he is writing to, the purpose or occasion of why they are writing, the type of genre being used. For instance - the Lord is my shepherd. Does this mean God is a literal shepherd and that I must be a literal sheep? Of course not. It is a metaphor isn't? It's poetry isn't? Yet on face value - the literal usage of the word means we don't have to go deeper and more mystical or look for code words to explain what shepherd or sheep means?
A mystical allegorical approach is when the readers try to use words as code words, or interpretations that only the inside people know, it is the approach used by the Eastern Church initially - and by many people in history trying to find deeper and magical or mystical understandings of the bible - like Newton and his numbers theories. Or the fundamentalists using newspaper interpretations. Or code word like Lion and sheep and eagle etc. Yes the bible contains - symbols and imagery. Yet, not code words or magic number systems. Yes, the language of the Hebrews and the Greeks does at times use numbers - and perhaps at times there are more covert points - but overall - this will depend upon the author, the audience, and the purpose. Revelation for instance was written to a people who were being persecuted by the Romans - there would be a reason to perhaps be a little more circumspect with language. Yet the Gospels are not written in such a manner. And lots of the bible is not written similarly, Context Context Context.
Nevertheless, I get the idea - you want to use the word "literal" as another type of genre - which it is not. There is no genre called literal. There is narrative. There is poetry. There is history. There is wisdom. There are letters. There are metaphors. There are gospels. And prophetic language. Or apochrophal. But LITERAL is not one of them.
so the Bible is written clearly ( for the most part). It is not a mystical book per se.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
First things first, since you are in discussion with men within this forum, therefore you go directly against Jesus' command in Timothy 2:12 since you are explicitly shown to be a woman in this link; https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and where YOU are therefore not to usurp the authority, nor teach, but to remain silent when around men within this forum!Addressing your misconstrued post #43;YOUR QUOTE OF CONTINUING TO STEP IN THE PROVERBIAL POO AGAIN: "Brother, if you could read - which quite honestly, I think you really struggle with any sentence of more than two words. You would have noticed that I was responding to Bones. He asked me - a question that honestly was a presumption. I responded with my view - which I repeat - "I don't want gays to burn in Hell. What a load of nonsense. I don't want anyone to burn in Hell."Listen up Bible fool WOMAN, it matters NOT whether Bones presented a presumption to you in the manner shown, because nonetheless you stated it was NONSENSE to "assumably" YOU, where in FACT, and in addition, it was not nonsense to Jesus' wants as I had shown your continued Bible ignorance, do you understand WOMAN? Jesus H. Christ, how dumbfounded are you continually going to be as a woman in front of the membership and Jesus (Hebrews 4:13) is beyond reason!Miss Tradesecret, since you always leave out the main premise of my posts in HIDING from them as usual, where in this instance, Jesus wanting gays and slurpies to DIE, I will post said verse again which YOU did not include in your misconstrued post #43 and is one of many showing Jesus wanting death for homosexuals: "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet . . . Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:26-27)Of note, Jesus and I are pleased that I easily "smoked you out" in my post #31 in this thread in addressing you HIDING from my godly posts directed to YOU, where one you hid from for 12 days! Whereas you obviously were too embarrassed not to address them now because it showed your true MO of being the #1 runaway from biblical axioms in this Religion Forum, good girl Miss Tradesecret! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7202/post-links/317572"A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16)NEXT BIBLE RUNAWAY FOOL WOMAN LIKE TRADESECRET THAT GOES AGAINST JESUS' TIMOTHY 2:12 WILL BE ...?
Already answered. You have not provided any further information to discuss. If this continues I shall take it as a forfeit on your part.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
If your genocidal prick is great to you, you show your low moral standard.
So why don't you start by providing the only correct and absolute moral standard? Oh wait - you can't. Because without God there can be no absolute standard and all moral standards become subjective. Great win there boss.
Christians are such liars, they are hardly worth talking to.
I'm not a liar. And to be perfectly candid - if someone is a liar - they are not a Christian. A liar by the way is not someone who tells a lie. A liar is someone who is characterized by lying.
As to Jesus, care to discuss your poor moral thinking and how you have to sin to be saved, as you ask Jesus to ignore his own laws?
I'm keen to discuss Jesus.
--------On Jesus dying for Christians. Try to think in a moral way.It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.
It would be nice if you actually understood Christian doctrine. Christians do not teach or believe that God died. Jesus the Christ died.
Secondly, humanity chose of its own free will to rebel - knowing full well the consequences of its actions. It was not condemned unjustly - but fully justly.
Thirdly, what is justice? And why couldn't justice be satisfied by someone else apart from the person who owed the debt. A bank who is owed money by someone - is very much going to take payment from anyone who pays for it - not just the person who owes it. Justice is necessary when a law is broken. Why? When you figure that out - you will see why your last statement is NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT and inconsistent with pretty much every culture in history.
Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.
Christians have not swallowed a lie. They recognize what they can do and what they can't do. They recognize what they are culpable for and what they can actually do about it. I don't consider Jesus evil at all. I think Jesus is the king of the universe. Jesus' gift to me is a free gift. I couldn't earn it. Or pay for it myself. It would be arrogant to think I did not need Jesus to help me. Just as it is arrogant for people to think they can live without God. God is the only independent being in existence. The rest of us are totally dependent upon him even to breathe. It is the apex of arrogance to think you could satisfy God yourself.
It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
According to which ABSOLUTE moral law? If justice demands death of my son for his crimes and if I choose to die for him in his place - that is my choice. It is not my son's choice. My son would in fact not give me the choice. He would tell me that he is going to die for his own offence and that there is no way that he is going to let me die for him. Yet, when I don't give him a choice - and I die and the judge is satisfied, what is immoral about that? In fact - if the judge saw me take my life in order to pay for the offence - and then went ahead and killed my son anyway - that would be immoral. Jesus never sat down and asked me permission to die for me. He never did that for anyone. Jesus did not need to ask our permission. Yet he has paid for our sins - of his own choice. For me not to trust him - for what he has done - would be immoral. For me not to acknowledge that his gift was generous would be stupid. For me to know that he has paid my debt and then still go ahead and make another payment is stupid. Whatever the situation - Jesus dying for my sins is not immoral.
To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
On the contrary - to pay the bank manager twice is stupid. To go ahead and suffer for what ever has already been paid is dumb. That is the immoral part. You have it absolutely upside down. Justice demands that my sins make me culpable. If I abdicated my responsibility you might have a point. But how do I abdicate any of this is someone has already paid the debt? The bank manager or the judge just wants to be satisfied. If Jesus had asked me if I wanted him to die for me - I would have said no. But he did not ask me. Hence it is impossible for me to abdicate any responsibility. Since when the time comes for me to go before the court - I am told to go - since I am not guilty.
Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Christians do not intentionally ignore Jesus' words.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
v. 20 is the answer the question posed in v. 2 asks. The sour grapes proverb. It is an answer that intentionally opens the door to divine mercy see 21-24. Ezekiel rejects cosmic determinism, the fatalism as presented by some. Rather than putting Christians into a difficult situation it rightly speaks to the grace that God pours out upon his people - an undeserved gift - through Jesus. Justice and Mercy go hand in hand. But there can be no mercy without justice .
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Absolutely and totally agree. This is why Christians speak of Sin and Sins. There is the original sin - or sometimes known as total depravity of sin. Not that everyone is as evil as they could possibly be - but rather tainted by that sin - like one drop of ink placed into a glass of water taints the entire glass of water without turning it all into ink. Yet who would drink it? Even though it probably wouldn't even be tasted. This original sin placed all humanity into an estate of sin. It is inherited by covenantal means. Yet this estate is not the same as sins. Sins are what people - all people every person - do. These are the concrete express or implied fruits of that estate of sin. Deuteronomy is talking about sins, not sin. It is talking about people being responsible for their own sin. Of course - this verse does not rule out mercy or grace. It merely and rightly says that people should be responsible for their own sins.
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
And yet even in that Psalm - just a few verses later in Psalm 49:15 the answer is given. "But God will redeem my life from the grave; he will surely take me to himself". No ordinary human will by any means redeem his brother. Just like no ordinary goat was able to be the scapegoat. It needed to pure and undefiled. Yet Jesus was no ordinary human. He is the Christ. It is Christ - the anointed one. The messiah - The God MAN who alone - is able to redeem anyone. It is the God Man who saves.
There is no way that Christians would teach their children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are promoting doing just that.Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fiber as Yahweh. Tsk tsk.
Christians - following Jesus do teach the concept of redemption. We teach mercy and grace. All men deserve death. That is the teaching of the Bible. And that is totally just. Yet - we also teach that where there is law and where there is justice - there is also mercy and grace. Mercy and Grace that is meted out by God The Saviour of the World.
Thanks for the opportunity to partially explain this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
It's not that I can't answer more than one at a time. It's that it will take more than one post at a time. You might have hours to waste on a forum. I don't.
This is why I asked you in the past to start your own threads - and which you just NEVER wanted to do - because you though I was trying to get you banned. I don't report people. I don't want you to run away or get banned. I can't say I like you. But this does not mean I want you banned.
I just happen to think the questions you raise - religious questions - seeking an understanding of what the bible says is important enough to give proper respect and time to. You might think it is all a big joke. You might like to try and find ways to ban me. That is your very immature perspective on life. But it is not mine. And never has been.
Your responses are the ones which are in jest. It is you who continues to be schooled. I know you dislike this. but the facts speak for themselves.
Please - let's discuss one at a time. Without the accusations. Without the scorn. As people who really do wish to discuss the passage and the truth of it. Are you able to do so?
Let's begin with the cursing parents one. Although I have addressed it - perhaps you can comment about maximum penalties - or the value of family - or the seriousness of relationships or the change in philosophy from biblical to modern to post modern. Or the understanding of covenant. Rather than trying to seize on one word and make it all about that - let's actually have an exchange of ideas - rather than always trying to score points - winning at all costs. Is that even possible for you?
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
"Yet so is Jesus rising from the dead and yet I absolutely have no question or doubt about this historical fact. After all, the best fit for the explanation of the exponential growth of the church is the physical resurrection of Jesus."No questions show acceptance of miracles, which is a stupid idea.If you want me to believe your fantasy, then you have to believe mine on a real Thor.Are you ready for reciprocity of your foolish thinking?
I'm not asking you to believe me. I suggest you ought to believe the facts - quite a different thing really. Miracles are miracles aren't they? Obviously they are meant to be hard to believe and hard to do or people would see and do them all the time. The really goes without saying - although it seems you struggle with that concept. It's a little like donkeys talking. Impossible - so if it is recorded as having been done - the question might be asked - why? What's the point? What is different in this circumstance. Like Jesus rising from the dead. Again impossible. Yet, there you have it. If was normal - no one would even look at it a second time.
I take the view that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the most plausible and best fit of the circumstances and facts surrounding the event. Yep there are lots of other plausible explanations for part of the facts and circumstances. Many have shown that to be the case. It is the entire picture however that these other explanations for down on. And they do so - flat on their faces.
Just look at the different alternative possibilities. Jesus didn't die. The resurrection was a conspiracy between the disciples and the Romans. A conspiracy between the disciples and the Jews. A conspiracy between the rich Jewish folk, the disciples, and the Romans. Some say there was a secret cave. Some say Jesus was buried in the wrong plot- hence it was lost. Some say it was a secret chemical poison to make him look dead but that he revived. Some say he was switched with Joseph or the man who carried the cross. Some say its only a myth. Some say Jesus married Mary and that he went and lived in the hills for years to be seen by many. Some say he wasn't a man. A spirit only. some say - he became the Christ at his baptism and died on the cross. And then rose spiritually - not physically. some say all or sorts of things. And yes there are others. I am sure Stephen will enlighten us - accusing me of not knowing - as he is want to do.
But none of these different possibilities is able to account for the whole set of circumstances and facts as recorded in the NT alongside with the exponential growth of the early church. sometimes 2 / 3 but never the lot. mostly, 1/3 so long as you don't want to worry about the rest.
To deny the resurrection occurred physically - we need something which will account for the missing body, the eyewitnesses of his resurrection - who then died for their testimony. ( people might die for a cause they believe in - but rarely for a lie they know is a lie) and there were over 400 witnesses recorded and were able to be called upon in that time. And then there is the exponential growth of the church - well before Constantine came into view.
The best fit of the evidence is that Jesus rose physically from the grave. The biggest problem with the biblical resurrection is actually the denial of the existence of God. For people who do believe in God - the resurrection is not a problem at all. Yet - without the existence of God - the puzzle of Jesus' resurrection is and will remain impossible to explain.
Again I don't care whether you believe me or not. I am a nobody. I just ask you to consider the facts and make up your own mind.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not your lackey. You finally asked a question that required a response.
As I have said before - I answer when I am ready to - not just because you "DEMAND".
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR INEPT QUOTE IN POST #35 RELATIVE TO YOU NOT WANTING GAYS TO BURN IN HELL, WHERE YOU WILL BE UPON YOUR DEMISE: "I don't want gays to burn in Hell. What a load of nonsense. I don't want anyone to burn in Hell."Now you are calling Jesus' inspired words as NONSENSE when He wants gays and slurpies to either burn in hell, or should die while upon earth!:
Brother, if you could read - which quite honestly, I think you really struggle with any sentence of more than two words. You would have noticed that I was responding to Bones. He asked me - a question that honestly was a presumption. I responded with my view - which I repeat - "I don't want gays to burn in Hell. What a load of nonsense. I don't want anyone to burn in Hell."
This has nothing to do with the words of Jesus - nor has it anything to do with what Jesus wants or considers just. It was and remains my personal response to the question that Bones asked me. I don't want gays to burn in Hell. Read it again. I don't want anyone to burn in Hell. You pulling a verse out and suggesting I am calling Jesus' words nonsense is typical of the terrible way in which you read anything. I told Bones it was nonsense for him to ask why gays should be burnt in Hell. It is nonsense. I have never said anywhere that I want gays to burn in Hell. I challenge you if you are up to it - which you are not of course - to find anywhere where I have said that I want gays to burn in Hell. And you won't find it. Because I have never said it or suggested it. as I said to Bones - it is nonsense. And it is presumed by people like Bones and like you who DONT actually know how to read properly.
The rest of your gibberish has no need for me to respond to since it is all premised on your misunderstanding and misreading of my reply to Bones.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Our friend is not a dunce.
Perhaps the word dunce is uncalled for. Nevertheless, given the comments and vileness that he throws and with the obvious façade of his persona, then I am entitled to reflect upon the fact that lacks credibility.
He just does not want to face the reality of how vile Christianity is today and Yahweh has always been.
I must disagree with part of your comment. I agree that the Brother does not wish to face the reality of Christianity and of God. Yet he seems to only demonstrate a knowledge of misnomas of those things. His continual regurgitating of strawman arguments proves this without fail. Christianity is not vile now. It was never vile in the past. And nor has God been. The only people who might suggest such a thing are those who have fallen beneath God's judgment. Or wish that if they wish really hard - they might avoid it.
It was great in the past but is now moral garbage.
Christianity has never been great. It has always been humble. God is Great. Therein lies the difference.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Christianity engages and fights evil.Can you define Evil for us?
I define evil as the absence of good. Just like darkness is the absence of light. Since God is only good - it is where ever people don't submit to God's rule.
And how does Christianity go about engaging and fighting Evil?
The answer to this - is preaching the gospel. Calling for people to repent of their sin and to turn to Jesus.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I don't want gays to burn in Hell. What a load of nonsense. I don't want anyone to burn in Hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Perhaps if you asked one question at a time it might be helpful. Even by going back to your first link in this post at this time - demonstrates that I am addressing your points throughout the discussions.
Just because you have nothing better to do that post one post after the next after the next - does not mean that others have the same time. Most of us work and don't sit on our backsides all day doing nothing but posting into forums.
If I had run away as so often put it - then I would not continue to come back and respond to your posts. At all. I would just leave or never respond.
The fact is I do come back and I do respond. Yet if I miss many of your posts it is not because I am running away - it is because I am not omniscient and don't see them all. Thank by the way for reminding me of this first post. As it was it - I had answered prior to your linked page - perhaps not satisfying your questions - but answering it all the same.
The question posed by you - I put into context. This of course - you dismissed because you didn't care about the context - you just wanted me to see the words about God indicating that anyone who curses their mother or their father should be put to death. I pointed out the context - and the reason why Jesus referred to this. You didn't care about the context. Hence - you don't really care about the words - save and except to use them only in a one dimensional manner that simpletons like to use them.
I rejected that you understood the law since you don't understand the purpose of the law. Like most simpletons, you look at one line and think you get it. This is why the world is going downwards. Simpletons are dumb. They can't handle things of substance. You can't handle things of substance.
The purpose of the law is to protect the family unit. The family unit is the significant building block of society. Male and female and kids. This is called private property law. Socialists of course and communists reject private property and therefore they reject the traditional understanding of the family. So they have distorted it and changed it. Now the family is whatever you want to make it. Two boys. Two girls. three of whatever. Kids from everywhere. Social contract is the basis. No apparent hierarchy. Every one is equal. Hence for someone to curse their parents - is ok. And acceptable because parents don't have any authority. And as such kids do whatever they want.
God on the other hand - set up laws to protect the family unit. For God as it is for me - it is highly valuable and therefore the punishment for trying to destroy should be the highest penalty. For me the higher the penalty - the greater the crime. Cursing parents is entirely a significant offence and should be treated as such.
Jesus' point in the context as I highlighted was the difference between God's rules and human rules. I knew you would not understand. I was hopeful that even a simpleton like yourself would still get the gravitas of such reasoning. Nevertheless, you dashed my hopes as you have done on other occasions.
God's rules protect society. Human rules tend to be culturally relevant to a particular time. Hence - their ceremonial washing. Their fasting. Both have their places even as many of our cultural rules have their place - but to come down hard on one - especially a man made rule which is only cultural - while at the same time neglecting the more important rules is the act of simpletons. You seem to side with the pharisees over Jesus. Despite your mocking pretense of being with Jesus.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
"I don't think there is an undeniable proof that the bible is true. "Do you see a possibility of the talking serpents and donkeys in scriptures as being real and true?
Hello GCB for short,
In my view serpents and donkeys do not talk. In fact it would be absurd if this was the case for a whole raft of reasons.
So in the unusual situation that either a serpent or a donkey did talk - then this would be a signal to us to sit up and take notice. For the very fact that it would be so unusual is a clue of its importance and potential influence of a divine matter.
In the Bible - which does admit to the existence of God, angels, demons, possibly witches etc, it is interesting that talking animals are not more normal. Especially if these other figures are supposedly fairytales. Yet the fact that animals - (and I am not talking about the obvious symbolic imagery of Revelation's Beasts) do not talk as a general and understood rule, signal that the two occasions are not to be taken as normal but intentionally unusual.
In my view - the talking serpent is not on earth as we understand it anyway - but a picture of Heaven. What happens in Heaven is by virtue of its uniqueness going to be different from what happens normally on earth.
The occasion with the donkey is fascinating. I'm not sure which is more unusual. The donkey talking or the angel standing there. Either way - the story is not suggesting that donkeys talk normally- but rather an unusual and even divine intervention. In an universe that God exists in - for God to make a donkey talk - one which he created in the first place is not even remotely impossible - yet for God to make the donkey talk is unusual. There must have been something going on.
To be honest - I don't think it is likely this is bound to happen in our world anymore. It was a rare and unusual situation. Yet certainly possible given the God of the universe. It is certainly hard to believe. Yet so is Jesus rising from the dead and yet I absolutely have no question or doubt about this historical fact. After all, the best fit for the explanation of the exponential growth of the church is the physical resurrection of Jesus. Nothing else is even remotely plausible.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Nope - you are totally wrong. The Bible is not homophobic.
Just because you want to specify one sexual act and make the bible about that - the Bible and Christian's dont'
you conflate the truth with lies - the general with the specific - homosexuality with other sexual acts - and you pick and choose.
The Bible is not homophobic and you have not come close to proving otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you always like your own pages? LOL!
Why would anyone need to take a "scientific" approach or use "scientific methodology" to what you say of the bible that it " is so clearly written ,crystal clear in fact" and is "unambiguous" and that the authors are" extremely clear on what they intended to communicate"?Anyone with half a brain - understands the scientific approach to reading is the proper way to read books.Nope. The bible is "just a book of words that don't mean anything" and a book that can't cause anything" and are "crystal clear and unambiguous" according to you. Therefore there is no reason to take a scientific approach to it. it is not a scientific book of any sort.
don't attribute words to me that are your interpretation of what I wrote. At least put some context to it. If you are able to.
The Bible is clear. No issues. Yet if you choose to read it in a manner that it was never meant to be read - then it won't be crystal clear. This does not mean it was not written clearly. I see no point in continuing this conversation. You agree with me anyway - you just don't want to apply the same standards you do to other books to the bible - because - then you won't be able to articulate your made up secrets about the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Behold another bold face lie by the master of trolls. "Many end up in prison". Not most. Read it againI don't have to read it again. This is what you have said about atheist that "you know" .Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead. Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian. #33You keep ignoring your own statements and causing me to re-post what YOU have actually wrote and who you wrote about . I shall point you to the relevant part that you are attempting to play down and deny.You clearly say about MOST atheist that "you know" :"Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime#33
Stephen it is obvious when you go back and read my words that you squirm and realize (AGAIN) the errors of your own responses. The fact that you take my word - "many" and try to make it mean "most". They are two different words. If I represent 1000 atheists and say 100 go to prison that is many. It is not most. And if 60 of those 100 go to prison for kiddie crime that is "most" of those who to prison.
As for many of them being impractical and airheads - it is true. Many couldn't change a tyre on their car if needed. They would ring up RACV roadside service. Many would enjoy sipping a late coffee but wouldn't have a clue how to write a sentence. In Australia, it's trendy to be an atheist. It has nothing to do with education or not. This is different to say America where it still reasonably normal to be religious.
Australia's culture is very different to USA and the UK. Yes there are similarities - but in respect of religion very different. Our prisons do not have the same percentage breakup of religious non-religion as America.
"To be clear I own all of my words" .#54Or are you saying that these were not your own words but someone else's'?
Stephen, would it be too much to ask you to stop being a donkey? Of course I own my words. Unlike you.
And let me remind you, that the person that you aspire to be like - Ethang5, has been banned for saying exactly what you are also saying and accusing "many" atheists of being;"ethang5 has been banned for 30 days for an ongoing pattern of unwarrantedly accusing people of being pedophiles seemingly when in any heated disagreement with him".
I like Ethang5. He is someone whom I admire. He is head and shoulders in character above either you or the Brother. I am not entirely sure why he was banned - I don't go about checking other people's sins. In any event it is the moderators who make a decision about banning people - even as they did with you on how many occasions and also for others.
I am not Ethang5 if that is what you are trying to suggest. The moderators have checked that lie out before and I am very HAPPY if they continue to do so. But your continual accusations - (though you always deny doing any such thing) of such a thing - are really quite boring. If you don't have anything constructive to say about religion on this site then perhaps you ought to find yourself another hobby, rather than stalking and bullying people.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't think Christianity is homophobic.It is if Christians are of the belief that Jesus is also god from the beginning. Do you believe then that Jesus is also god from the beginning?
If your point is that Christianity is part and parcel with the same God of the OT, then yes - I can for the sake of the discussion agree that Jesus is from the beginning. Yet this does not make Christianity homophobic.
The bible is not homophobic.The bible clearly states that the sentence for homosexuality is death. Or are you saying it doesn't?
Yes, the OT law states that the maximum sentence for homosexuality is death. This however does not make it homophobic.
NEVERTHELESS - it depends what homophobic means.Define homophobia while keeping in mind that the word phobic means to have an irrational fear or dread of something or someone? Was god being irrational and did he have an irrational fear of homosexuals when commanded the death sentence for homosexuals?
God does not have an irrational fear of anything including homosexuals. So again - God is not homophobic.
If it means disagrees with homosexuality then yes it is homophobic.So does god define homophobia.
Good question. I don't know. Having said that - I was responding in relation to how it is understood by the wider and general population.
If it means hates and wants to be violent towards homosexuals - then it is not homophobic.Then, by your own words the bible is homophobic. Because the god of the bible commands the death penalty for homosexuality. Is this not hateful enough and violent enough for you, Reverend Munchausen?
False. Don't conflate the act and the individual. God does not hate homosexuals. He may well hate homosexuality. Yet what is more important to consider is what is the law about? It is in the context of an entire raft of sexual sins. It is the fact that God loves faithfulness and marriage and family. A marriage was a safe haven for a man and woman to raise children. Every sexual sin that is condemned is expressly opposed to a safe marriage. It is therefore the death penalty for bringing this safe haven in disrepair. It is the fundamental unit of society. And anything that would change that or distort that or raise itself up as a competition to that - was subject to the death penalty.
These two ideas and concepts are very different.No. And this is where you are trying to redefine a word and reinterpret what god means when speaking of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an "abomination" to god so much so that he commands the death penalty for this "abomination".
I have explained more above. I am not attempting to redefine any word. Stop telling lies. Yes, Homosexuality in God's eyes is an abomination. I have never said or implied otherwise. It is not alone though - it is in a category with many other forms including de-facto relationships.
If homophobic combines the two then it does harm to ideas and thinking in principle.And here you are again, suggesting and trying to introduce things that have absolutely nothing to do with what the bible and god say about homosexuality.
No I making a decent argument that dislike.
Christianity is not misogynous.It very clearly is. Would you like the BIBLICAL evidence, Reverend Munchausen?
No it is not. People within the bible may well have acted in such a way - but the principles derived from Scripture would never lead us to that conclusion. Not honestly anyway.
Define what a just cause is. And then explain why that actually matters.
Irrelevant, gods command is clear. You absolute bible dunce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Repent of your ways - forsake the ignorance of your own wisdom and embrace the wisdom of GOD.Speaking of ignorance, you missed the questions that you say you can and do and will answer;
LOL @ you. I never said I would answer these questions for you.
What did God choose you for?
Well according to Ephesians 1:4 it was so that I might be holy and blameless in his sight. He goes on to say he predestined me and other believers in accordance with his pleasure and will - to the praise of his glorious grace.
Why would anyone need to take a "scientific" approach or use "scientific methodology" to what you say of the bible that it " is so clearly written ,crystal clear in fact" and is "unambiguous" and that the authors are" extremely clear on what they intended to communicate"?
Anyone with half a brain - understands the scientific approach to reading is the proper way to read books. People don't just pick up books and read a verse here or a paragraph there to try and understand what the author is trying to say. If they do - in pretty much the way you do- then people would simply mock them - as I do to you.
When we are trying to understand what the authors of a book that is written over 2000 years of history and with over 40 authors from cultures in far away lands and with far long ago cultures - it is important to know who they are - why they were writing - who they were writing to - what occasion they were responding too and what kind of genre they were using. To try and understand the bible without these things is silly. Yes, the bible is for the most part straightforward to read - and is for the most part unambiguous and clear in what they are trying to communicate - but not if you DON'T apply proper methodology to it.
This is why Charismatics struggle with many parts of the bible and why fundamentalists say lots of crazy things. They don't use the recognized methodology. They think the Spirit of God will simply let them know what it means.
The test of a proper methodology is when people using it - come to the same or very close interpretations of a text. Yet when people relying on the Holy Spirit are the only ones who come to a particular interpretation then it is a pretty big clue they have missed the methodology class. Similarly when people such as yourself are the only ones who come to the distorted understanding of scriptures that you do - and that nobody else can - then it too is a pretty big clue.
The things I say as a general rule have been tried and tested and people - and scholars around the world can see how I arrived at a certain point. That you disagree with my points are a problem with you - not with my methodology.
And what do you do with the information that you get from scripture?
Well it depends what information you are talking about? As a general rule - I try to read a passage, interpret it to understand it, and then ascertain any relevant principles from it - that might be applied to my life. I try to ascertain whether the principle is a command or a recommendation or some kind of wisdom. I try to ascertain whether it is an encouragement or a correction or a rebuke or a manner of training me for righteousness. I try to ascertain whether it was addressed to me as a person in every generation or whether it was addressed to the people of Israel or to a particular individual. Or whether it was a principle or prophecy for Jesus.
There are lots of possibilities for the information I obtain from Scripture. The above is not a comprehensive list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If there is an actual GOD, I would expect it to be omni-sensible.....Rather than the one of whacky biblical stuff.
Would you to care to explain what omni-sensible is?
Though my only hedge betting, is that GOD might actually represent an inevitable evolutionary creation, process and finale.
Would you care to put that into a sentence that ordinary people might explain?
So I'm not expecting a floaty about bloke to reappear any time soon.
For the record - neither am I? Does that make me an atheist?
And of course everything might just be pure chance.
Including the thought in your head that managed to respond perfectly rational to that question. Hardly! And very unlikely.
And of course, neither you nor I actually have a clue....And neither did those that contrived the particular tale that you are hedging your bets on.
You can certainly speak for yourself about not having a clue. But you cannot speak for me. I might not know close to everything. In fact I know hardly that much at all. Yet, with what I do know - and have experienced and am able to deduce using reason and logic - the bible is true and God is real.
But if it makes you happy....Good.And I'm happy too.
It has never been about making me or you happy. It is about something completely different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I haven't run away. I am still here waiting for you to post something that requires me to respond. I don't as a rule respond to attacks of a personal nature. I will respond to matters of a religious nature - in accordance with the terms of this forum. I will however ignore any posts that are directed of a personal nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well, as I predicted here , Brother>>>#128"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)But I don't doubt the above verse will not apply to the Reverend Munchausen and s/he will have a new definition for the word "liars" and a new translation for what Revelation 21:8 actually means.#128Tradesecret wrote: "It does not apply to me in that context". #131
Surely even a dunce like you appreciates that verse to apply to me requires that I be a liar? I am not a liar. Convenient of course that you intentionally and deceitfully choose to delete that line when you repost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well obviously from my point of view the dilemma is easily fixable.In so much as a biblical GOD has never been proven to exist.
And God has never been proved not to exist.
In this exchange, I'm just questioning your contradictory faith and assertions.
I do not see it as contradictory at all. Any more that you see as contradictory the improbability of the universe just happening and the existence of God.
"God is infallible" yet it's imperfect creation "stuffs up"....So who's fault is that?
God is infallible. His creation was very good. God designed the universe with inbuilt abilities to stuff up. I think that is brilliant not a stuff up. As for fault - the only fault here belongs to those who actually stuffed up.
It's clearly the fault of a fallible GOD, for imperfectly creating.And a GOD that 's rather keen to pass the buck.
You do realise that you continue to sound over and over again like that little boy who goes out in cricket - and says - I'm not playing any more - and I'm going to take my bat and go home.
God made the world very good. Humanity - one of God's creations with the ability to do good and bad - chose to intentionally go bad. In my view - this capability is more profound and perfect than the robot you would have preferred which could NEVER do wrong. The entire notion of freedom - to do bad but also to love freely is in my view a much better picture than ONE where everyone is simply programmed to do good.
I would prefer to have a girl love me willingly and freely than a robot or one who is brainwashed.
"God is the ultimate authority. He is the Law. He wrote the Law."Sort of reminds me of something.......Despotism is one word for it.
And perhaps that might be true if God was not perfect and good.
He f**ks up peoples lives and the people are the sinners, because he says so.And you would worship a despot.....Also reminds me of something.
God does not stuff any bodies life just for the sake of it. He asks people to do the right thing - or suffer the consequences. We live in a fallen world that is the point.
And to the last point the answer is no, because there is no known answer.Your solution....Blind faith in a fantastical ideology is simply what it is.....A fantastical solution based upon blind faith.
I don't believe in blind faith. That is the whim of people who are atheists. They believe nothing existed and then nothing exploded for no particular reason and that from this nothing - which somehow exploded - that everything came into being and was somehow subject to laws - that required a scientific methodology to prove anything. Blind Faith.
And "this is how the Bible describes God"......Well stories describe characters.....You're stating the obvious.Doesn't mean that they are real though.
Nor that it is not.
And the Roman occupation of the "Holy Land" might have produced a martyr named Jesus, who died for transgressing the Law.But we can be no more sure of this than we can be of the existence of a GOD.Can you actually prove otherwise.
Jesus a Jew from a century long time ago - in a backwater place that nobody really cared about - has become one of - if not the most famous person in history - why? Because he died on a cross. And his disciples claimed he rose from the dead - - a point for which they died for - not for a lie - but for what they actually saw with their own eyes.
Billions of people have come to faith in this Jew. Billions of lives have been changed. None of that is conveniently allowed to be evidence. Just like the bible is conveniently not allowed to be evidence. You don't want proof. You really don't. You just want an excuse to live the way you do - without feeling bad about it.
Just as you want to hedge your bets - just in case you are wrong about God. So you try and figure it is all his fault - despite the fact that you are responsible for your own life - God states it like it is. The problem is - though - you keep coming back to religious forums like this - asking people to try and justify their positions BECAUSE you actually can't justify your own.
My view - is you should stop - sit down - take out the gospel of Mark - spend an hour reading it - out loud - and then ask yourself the question - why don't I want to believe this story? Then you should do something really profound. Pray. Ask God to help you understand what you have just been reading. Ask for forgiveness. And then find a local church - preferably either a baptist church or a reformed one. And then talk to the pastor and honestly - get serious.
You only get one shot at this life. And you either spend it all trying to find meaning or you do something about it. You seem like a smart guy. Do the smart thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No need to change words or meanings.
I am not a liar.
It does not apply to me in that context.
It does however apply to you - since you are fake and a fraud and a liar. But even still - while there is life - there is hope. Repent of your ways - forsake the ignorance of your own wisdom and embrace the wisdom of GOD.
I continue to pray for God's mercy on your life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother -
I am not a female.
I can't be bothered as a rule to respond to bullyish behavior.
There is nothing to be discussed in relation to your post about the same.
I will respond to your earlier post in respect of the questions of religion you sought clarification. And I will do that when I have some time to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that pretending not to understand, so as to deflect from the logic of my argument, can rightly be regarded as strawman.
Who is pretending? I reject that God is omni- everything. There is no evidence to suggest anywhere in the bible that the God portrayed there is omni-everything. You assert - I refute. Refutation does not mean I have disproved it. Merely that I reject it. And ask you to produce evidence to support your assertion. I have no need to deflect. My position is to get to the point.
Nonetheless, if a GOD is fallible and does not take responsibility for the outcomes of it's decisions and actions, then why should a human have any faith in it?
Hmm. But God is infallible. He cannot fall if we wish to use this definition. The reality is that God has taken responsibility for humanity's stuffup. He himself paid the penalty for Humanity's stuff up. Jesus died on the cross suffering the indignity of humiliation and shame and bearing it for whosoever would accept his help. He did not need to do this. God does not owe humanity anything. Man chose to stuff up. Yet God still despite humanity's pride and arrogance - was prepared to help anyway.
The other thing you just don't seem to grasp - is God is God. I know you don't believe. But you don't help yourself by ignoring the basis of who and what God claims to be. Christians say - God is the ultimate power and authority. He is accountable only to himself. Now I know that in this 21st century of flat earthers - where we think everything should be egalitarian - or socialist - FLAT with no hierarchy, that God or anyone as the pinnacle and ACTUALLY above the law is silly and does not compute. Yet until the Atheist or whatever starts to grasp this concept - which honestly, you don't, then these type of questions you raise - miss the point.
God is the ultimate authority. He is not accountable to anyone but himself. He does not owe anyone anything. He is above the law. He wrote the law. He is the law. That is how the Bible describes God. Now you may not agree with this position - but surely you must concede that this is how the Bible describes God.
Hence - for you to suggest otherwise - or that he must accept responsibility is an absurdity. Of course if God is fallible - as you put it - it creates a dilemma that I can't fix and you can't either. Although I would like to know how you would resolve it. If God is fallible - against what measure has he fallen? Is there some kind of measure that is out there - in the ether somewhere. Some kind of moral ABSOLUTE and OBJECTIVE law that is not God? If there is - can you prove it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
if a GOD creates and is omni-everything.
What is omni- everything? I don't recall the God of the Bible saying he is omni- everything. Is that a strawman argument?
Then it would be logical to suggest that everything is as a GOD planned it, or that a GODS plans were fallible.
It depends what omni-everything means. - But why are you omitting to discuss or at least admit the notion of first and second causes?
And you're picking and choosing, but all four adjectives would apply.
Actually, you are the one who is doing the picking and choosing. I am just trying to figure out what you mean.
Though if a GODS creation fails and throws doubt onto their omni-credentials, why are mere humans sinners?
I suppose it would be helpful to know what omni-credentials are? And what is a mere human?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
My bio, dear Brother bigot who thinks that some woman are inferior to other woman - is as honest and truthful as yours. Prove me wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I try to make it a habit of not responding to bigots and idiots. For you I am content to break my habits. Idiot. What is a second class woman? Would you care to elaborate? Bigot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I am not a woman. I am not a second class woman - whatever that is in your bigoted brain. Do you think that some woman are more inferior to others? Bigot!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hello Stephen,
I don't quote scripture at you.And I haven't said you have on this occasion. But then that is not what I was disputing here , Reverend Münchhausen , now was it.You claimed; 'that you do not speak on behalf of Jesus', here>> #96.
LOL! There is a difference between me on a forum site purporting to speak on behalf of Jesus and me in my ordinary calling speaking for Jesus. If you can't see the difference, that is your problem - not mine. You repeating my words are not a reminder. Not for me anyway, although it amuses me everytime that you have so much information about me. You really are a creepy man, aren't you? I suppose you do make me feel special. Kiss kiss.
Stephen wrote: But that is your "calling" you bible dunce. Don't you tell us that "god chose you"#48? WTF did he choose you for? And for someone that often claims to have been taught to "memorised the bible from very young age"#52 you always forget what the Christ himself commanded you to do; to go out and preach the gospel to all the world.Mark 16:15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature". <<<<THAT Reverend Munchhausen, means to speak for Jesus and on his behalf.And only a bible dunce claiming to be a Pastor or a Chaplain with a serious memory problem could forget this:" Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you".Matthew 28:19-20 <<<<< THAT, you bible dunce IS your mission on earth. And otherwise known as The Great Commission.Did you forget your calling, Reverend Münchhausen?
Obviously! With just hint of sarcasm.
I never said the bible was a scientific book. I said that the scientific methodology of reading books ought to be used.Why scientific method? Don't you often tell us :Tradesecret wrote:"Well, I for one, do not believe that the bible is ambiguous at all. It is clear. Crystal clear in fact." https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4148-why-do-scripter-beleivers-cherry-pick-verses?page=3&post_number=55Why would anyone need to take a "scientific" approach or use "scientific methodology" to what you say is so clearly written and unambiguous ?
I am quite curious that you think you are making some kind of point here. Is there a difference between reading a book properly and the scientific method of reading books? Obviously you think so. It would be more amusing to see what the difference is in your mind.
Don't you also tell us that:Tradesecret wrote:"The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate". ?So again, bible dunce, if the authors have made the bible very clear and unambiguous, and extremely clear on what they intended to communicate, then why does anyone have to take a "scientific "approach to, or use "scientific methodology" for the bible?
See above. I am curious - that you are making such a point of this. A scientific approach is not difficult. It is the proper way that people who know how to read - utilise. And I suspect you do in most books that you read. However you have demonstrated over the past few years - that when it comes to the bible - you just throw all of that away and read it dumbly. Like most fundamentalists. Or those who have an agenda. I know that the post modern understanding of reading books has developed in recent years - and perhaps things have become more fluid because of that - but you - LOL - no - you - have your own independent and unique style. And you don't want us to think you are a fraud but you ARE. LOL. Your interpretational methods cannot be logically arrived at by anyone but you.
Holy books and any book - can be understood when the proper questions are asked.Nonsense! You mean only questions that YOU are able to answer are the correct questions, and you steer well clear of those that cause you problems and that you cannot answer and consider are the wrong questions.You do it all the time by prefixing many of your replies to questions asked of you with the words " maybe a better question would be" or "great question but the question should be" or "interesting question I am not sure its the right one" or "a better question to ask would be" in the hope of steering yourself away from an embarrassing question and /or conversation. Its an old trick and won't work on me. You take everyone here for a mugs and bible dunces and you make that mistake with myself and others often, you bible dunce. I am simply able to see right through your swerving and evading bullshite.
Don't nonsense me. I don't change the meaning. Yes. I ask questions - and prompt people to ask better questions - why? Because the questions being asked - have been addressed lots of times before. Despite LIARS like yourself pretending that no one can answer your questions. Or that people are afraid to answer your questions. You are SO FULL of yourself - that you can't even see this. I don't need to do "tricks" on you. I figured you out a long time ago. And I don't have any desire or need to "trick you".
So tell me Reverend Münchhausen, from whence does your information come concerning the life and teaching of the Christ, if not the scriptures?
It does come from the Scriptures.
I know this doesn't fit you agenda -I don't have an agenda you clown but you certainly do, would you like reminding once AGAIN what your agenda is?Tell me Reverend Münchhausen, do you not quote scripture at all when preaching to your " church of over 300"?
Again I DONT HAVE an agenda. The Great Commission is NOT MY AGENDA. And no matter how many times you try and purport that it is - you are simply wrong and in error. The Great Commission is not even the church's agenda. Yes, I have seen people suggest that it is. But it is not. It is a good statement - but again - let me point you back to the basic rules of reading - which you incidentally keep forgetting. Unlike the material you remember about me. Gee if you were as creepy towards reading properly as you were towards me - you might be a force to be reckoned with. But who was the book written too? By whom? And what was its purpose? Go to the passage - what is its context? And point? Who was Jesus talking to? Why? Was this before or after his ascension? Does that make a difference?
One day - hopefully before the Great Day - you will figure it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything is either the fault of A GOD or not.
Ok. So what kind of logic is that based on? X = Y and 1-Y.
A picking and choosing GOD, is an unreliable and untrustworthy GOD.
Do you mean as opposed to a spasmodic and irrational God?
Blaming humanity, for a GODS own errors of judgement and creation, is downright selfish.
I think if God is blaming humans for his own errors - it is not selfish - it is evil.
Yet, if humanity is blaming God for its own errors - then that is just stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I don't quote scripture at you. Perhaps there is a reason for this. I don't expect you would understand.
I never said the bible was a scientific book. I said that the scientific methodology of reading books ought to be used.
Holy books and any book - can be understood when the proper questions are asked.
I know this doesn't fit you agenda - but I don't care. You continue to make your silly statements - you continue to interpret the bible in your way. The problem is - no one sees it the same way as you do. You get to your point through - speculation. Preconceived ideas. And no one else is able to follow your dots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
you don't speak on behalf of Jesus.But the bible does, you idiot. The whole point of the bible is to spread HIS word. The NT revolves around Jesus , his message and his teachings, Reverend Münchhausen.
It is not the whole point of the Bible. In Timothy Paul indicates it is for instruction, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness in order that the people of God might be equipped. Of course the NT revolves around Jesus. But this does not mean that when the Brother speaks he is speaking on behalf of Jesus. That you have no problem conflating two entirely matters is nothing short of nonsense.
you don't speak on behalf of Jesus.And so do you with every post you make, you bible clown. Not to mention when you preach and minister to your congregation of "300" that you proudly claim to sermonise to. Where ever do you find the time!?😁
I am not purporting to speak on behalf of Jesus. Most of what I write is in relation to the meaning of the passages using the scientific method. Something which you decline to use.
He did punish the vegetables at the flood.But he appears to have missed at least one line vegetables.....
It was a general statement - saying God judged the world and found it guilt and then executed punishment. Decisions have consequences,.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
In once again addressing your apologetic Satanic spin doctoring of the scriptures, especially in you being a hell bound woman to begin with which will be another topic, I therefore will show the membership in just how Bible inept you truly are, and at your expense once again.
I offered no spin. I am not a woman. Go for it Brother. You have yet to prove anything.
JESUS SAID: "And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me. After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.….” ( Luke 19:26-28)1. The passage of Luke 19:26-28 is attributed to Jesus!2. The passage above is stated by Jesus showing His killing nature!3. The passage above is therefore showing Jesus as a serial killer!4. The passage above does NOT show Jesus as ever loving and forgiving, by the pure nature of what He said, period!5. Parable or not, Jesus promotes the murders of others, period!
I never said the passage is not attributed to Jesus. I said Luke was the author of the Gospel and wrote it a particular person with a particular purpose. Luke has attributed this passage to Jesus.
I reject that this passage demonstrates a killing nature. Certainly not Jesus'. You have not proved so. An assertion is an assertion not proof. The passage is part of a parable - the king who lawfully has invested money does not even demonstrate an investing nature. The king commands for his enemies to be slayed before him - again does not demonstrate a killing nature. Rather it demonstrates a kingly nature who does not tolerate those who would undermine him. It is what ALL leaders around the world do in one form or another. It demonstrates the tactics of someone who values his power and authority. The killing of his enemies - is a tactic only.
The passage is a parable - it is attempting to demonstrate in relation to when the kingdom was going to come. It has nothing to do with showing the nature of the king, save and except he is fair and just and committed to doing what he says because he means what he says. It is simply ridiculous to suggest Jesus is promoting the murder of others. In this parable - it is a lawful killing in any event. Not murder. But at the end of the day Jesus is promoting justice - and equity. And moreover - clearly enunciating that he will bring his enemies to justice. Death is one of the tools of any lawful kingdom.
YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: “Context. Firstly, ask yourself the correct questions - who wrote it - who was he writing to - what was the purpose of the writing. What kind of language is this?”
This is not grasping for straws - unless you think people who apply the scientific method are people grasping for straws?
Jesus and I will address your questions that in your embarrassment, you could NOT answer yourself! LOL!A. Who wrote it: Jesus did as our serial killer Yahweh God incarnate: “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
Firstly, you don't speak on behalf of Jesus. You speak on behalf of yourself. Luke wrote the gospel of Luke. He may have quoted Jesus' words. It is a gospel. Thank you however for actually attempting to answer the question. You are learning. A gold star for you.
B. Who was He writing too: To His disciples and His Jewish following since Jesus returned ONLY for the Jews.
Well the first couple of verses tell us he was writing to Theophilus. Luke did not have any disciples. Jesus has not yet returned so you seem to be off with the fairies. No gold star this time. Just a red X.
C. What was the purpose of the writing: It relates to the punishment of those who would not have Jesus reign over them subsequent to His Second Coming, even though it was supposed to happen within Jesus' time period (Mark 13:30-31), but didn’t, and where we are still waiting 2000 plus years later, where therefore Jesus LIED in the Mark passage.
Again - Luke was writing - so you have missed the context. Yes, Luke was relating that Jesus told this parable because people were questioning when the kingdom was coming. It had nothing to do primarily with punishment. Mark 13 - Jesus came in judgment on Jerusalem. This however was coming in judgment - not his physical return. Get with the program. Jesus has not returned. So coming in judgment and coming again are two different concepts. If you have read your Hebrew bible better you might have avoided this primary school error. Unfortunately you are not alone - many fundamentalists hold to your view as well.
D. What kind of language is this: Hebrew or Aramaic, which really doesn’t matter in the first place because what Jesus said, is what He said in mentioning the murders of others that do not want Him to rule over them, get it?
Well it does matter what kind of language it is. Firstly, it was in Greek. Secondly, the language is Gospel - and the part you are referring to particularly is a parable. The question is - what is a parable and what is its method of teaching? Is every nook and cranny of it to be understood as true or is the main point what the main point is? If you took some time to consider the unique characteristics of what a parable are - then perhaps you might do better on your test. Again a red cross here. No gold star.
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE MAKING JESUS A SERIAL KILLER IN THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME: "…. then perhaps you might start to understand the context and what Jesus is specifically saying.”The context and what Jesus is saying to His disciples, and Jewish followers ONLY, that anyone that does not want Him to rule over them upon His assumed Second Coming, is to bring them hither and slay them in front of Jesus! Get it? Huh? Or does 2+2 for you equal 3?
Yes - you do have problems with grammar. Jesus is not a serial killer. He was never charged with such an offence. And if he was charged - it would be found not proven. Kingdoms are not democracies. Kingdom are ruled by people with authority. And with strength to subdue their enemies. If he has slayed someone for treason - then it is lawful punishment. Lawful killings for treason do not make anyone a serial killer. Saying otherwise is absurd.
Now, let me easily school you once again, the above proposition is regarding when Jesus finally does come back to earth in His late Second Coming, but it will be in a very drastic murderous bloody mess when He does as horrifically shown below:
When Jesus returns dear Brother there are a couple of scenarios. Firstly, most people will be non-believers which means many people will face punishment for their decision to reject the true and just king. This choice or decision - is one individuals made knowing full well that their choice had a consequence.
The second scenario will that most people will be believers. In that situation - a minority of people will face the reality of God and either bow the knee or not. Personally, I hold more the second view than the first. Those that don't bow will face the consequences of that decision.
I deleted your reference to Revelation because you didn't consider the context. Who wrote the book - who was it written too and what was its purpose? Since I am a partial preterist, this means that in my view - most of Revelation has already been fulfilled and is now history. Not all of it. But most of it. We should consider Revelation not as a prophecy but as a book on worship.
I think we should have a healthy fear of God. After all, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Jesus said to not fear man who can just kill the person but rather fear the one who can destroy you in Hell.
God is the ONLY who has the power of life and death in his hands. Hence - for God to kill anyone is justified by the fact that gave them life in the first place. And he can give them life again in the future if he so chose to do so.
God means what he says and he says what he means. He has promised judgment to those who disobey him. Either in this life or in the one to come. He did punish the entire world - men, woman, children, and animals, vegetables etc at the flood. Totally just and right to do.
Any person he puts to death - either directly or indirectly through his subjects or sometimes through his non-subjects and enemies of his people - is completely just and right from the divine point of view.
His return won't be murderous. It will be a day of judgment for many people. Total and perfect justice. People will know once and for all that their sins will be punished by God. They will pay for it themselves. And rightly so - since they chose to accept this outcome. No one will be able to say they did not know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And axioms are ten a penny.
Are they? How about you start naming a few.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
1. JESUS SAID: "And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me. After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.….” ( Luke 19:26-28)
Context. Firstly, ask yourself the correct questions - who wrote it - who was he writing to - what was the purpose of the writing. What kind of language is this? After considering these questions - - and comprehending this is a parable addressing the issue posed in v. 11, then perhaps you might start to understand the context and what Jesus is specifically saying. We don't take metaphors too far or it becomes a nonsense. A parable tends to have one or two primary purposes. The rest is simply filling out the story. What was the issue he was addressing? And does he answer it? And if you don't think he does, then go back and read and re read to see how it is answered? What is the logic of the story?
2. JESUS SAID: “Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2: 22-23)
Excellent choice Brother. Your lessons continue here. But I teach by asking questions. (people who think they know everything don't like people asking them questions.) Who has Jesus cast onto the sickbed? V. 20 lets you know. But the context is what? John the apostle has written to whom? Go back to Revelation 1:1 and v. 4. And why did he write to these people? Again the answer is in v. 1. How are you enjoying your learning so far? It's fun isn't?
Now the verses you pick up on are which of these groups? I count 4 to this point. Rev 2:18 tells us which group in particular. See - you are getting it. So John who is relating Jesus' words - as Rev 1:19 points out - and writes Jesus' words. And after relating the first three groups - he comes to this one. 2:18-19 relate Jesus' confidence and love in this group. their deeds, their love, their faith, their service, their perseverance. Yet like any teacher he points out any errors. And that issue here is that they - this fourth group - tolerate "that woman" Jezebel - the one who calls herself a prophetess. "that woman" misleads Jesus' servants into immorality, idolatry inter alia. Jesus says he has given "that woman" time to repent but she refuses to do so. So he casts her on a bed of suffering. And he causes those who commit adultery with her to suffer until they repent. He indicates he will strike her children dead. And the purpose of this is to cause the churches to know that God knows all things and will provide justice.
Now the questions in our thinking arise? Who is that woman? Is a literal person? Is it a metaphor or a symbol of something else? The passage of course give us clues don't they? Why is Jesus using the name Jezebel? Is there a Jezebel in the Bible anywhere? Has this term been used before? What are the people that John is writing to - what would they think of when this name is used? Is there a reason Jezebel is linked with sexual immorality, idolatry? What is a bed of suffering? Is this literal or again a metaphor? And those who commit adultery? Is this talking literal adultery or spiritual unfaithfulness? And the children? Biological? Or simply disciples? If "that woman" is for example a nation or perhaps a religion, it is not talking about biological children. And what would killing be in that context? v. 24 goes on to say letting us know that "that woman" is telling Satan's secrets. Hence for Jesus to be warning this group to stay away from "that woman" is good.
I could provide you exactly what I think - but you seem to be a good student. Keep on learning.
3. JESUS SAID: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Matthew 15: 1-4)
Another excellent question to raise, Thanks for giving me this opportunity to continue to mentor you. Although I am sure we have discussed this before.
V 1 tells us the pharisees had come to Jesus enquiring about Jesus' disciples - why don't they wash their hands according to our religious rules? And Jesus response - why do you break the rules of God.
The first thing to note is - there are rules of tradition or rules of the church - and then there are rules of God. Rules of man v rules of God. The so called religious leaders - had been judging the disciples for breaking man's rules while they had been breaking the rules of God. Jesus points this out to them - reminding them how hypocritical this judgmentalism is. He was calling attention to them - stop with the nonsense - and start listening to God. This is what v. 8-9 is about - as Jesus recalls an OT passage. The Pharisees - were very religious on the outside - according to the rules of man - but were evil on the inside - by ignoring the rules of God.
The 5th commandment is to honour your parents. It is a rule of God, not a rule of man. Breaking the rules of God are much more serious than breaking the rules of man. The pharisees were saying - if you break our rules you are unclean. Jesus said - nope. Breaking man's rules don't make you unclean. Breaking God's rules reminds us that we are unclean already because our hearts are unclean.
I assume you are trying to highlight the punishment for breaking God's rules. The fact is - the more serious the punishment - is reserved for the breaches of good rules. We don't punish someone with death for chewing gum. We reserve the death penalty for the gravest offences. Dishonoring Parents is a grave offence. Cursing your parents is dishonoring.
It is a call really to start honoring our parents. To give them the due respect that parents in general show towards their children. Of course there are exceptions. But these would be rare and hopefully few. In our society in the 21st century we might have stopped honouring our parents. Mind you - we have pretty much stopped respecting anyone except ourselves. Look at you for instance - you respect no one except for yourself. Perhaps this may explain why you have so few friends and need to use such a charade of persona on this forum.
Rules are rules - if you break them - you get banned. And if this is to be expected with a human forum, how much more on a global and cosmic and divine level for those who disobey God. We can shut our eyes and pretend it is not so - but that well - is not the wisest thing to do is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
In Christianity we experience true spirituality as well.- No. You don't even know what I'am talking about.
Pretty much like you have no idea what I am talking about. I find the Muslim so called spirituality quite sad really.
We don't however base this on a feeling though, like Islam.- You keep confusing your faith with mine.
No sorry. Christianity is NOT based on a feeling. It is based on Christ. It is based upon the historical fact of Jesus dying and rising from the dead. Islam borrowed quite poorly from other religions including Hebrew and Christianity and a smattering of Hindu and Buddhist teaching.
It is not fear or love. Or a warm fuzzy out of this world experience.- You just said you don't have proof for your faith!
No I didn't. I said I don't have irrefutable proof that the bible is true. Quite a different thing really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I don't think there is an undeniable proof that the bible is true. It would depend upon the measure of truth in the first place and by what measure of truth would be acceptable.- What's the best you got?
I think there are lots of ways of demonstrating that the Bible is from God and worthy of being read by itself without the distortion of others such as the Book of Mormon, the JW's bible, and the Koran. Scripture interprets itself - it is not to be interpreted through the lens of other so called religious books which conveniently ALWAYS change the bible to mean something other than it really is.
I say the measure of truth is truth. We cannot determine whether a book is divine unless we have a divine measuring stick to measure it against. Hence the truth of Sola Scriptura. Scripture interprets Scripture. Anything less than a divine measuring stick will ALWAYS be an incorrect measure.
As far as I am concerned however the Bible is infallible. It is inerrant. It is entirely trustworthy. It reliable.- What proof do you have to believe this?
Infallible means its from God. It is a divine book. Very few books in the world claim to be God's own word. For instance the Koran doesn't make this claim. Its scholars might. But they are incorrect. A divinely given book would require this authentication and without such an authentication - we can discard it as a divine book. Of course logically - having this claim does not prove per se it is divine - but the inverse is necessarily true. Hence why we know that the Koran is not a divine book.
Inerrant means it is without error. The bible is its own measure. As I indicated above - we can only measure the truth of a divine book by a divine measure. Hence - the bible as its own measure - clearly is measured perfectly. To be without error as determined by a divine measure is very different to saying that the book has spelling mistakes or historical inaccuracies or so called contradictory passages. To make that mistake is to fall into a classic logical and philosophical error. I wonder if you have the capacity to find which one I am referring to.
It is totally reliable because it is the WORD of GOD.
Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life".Jesus is the embodiment of truth.- That sounds circular. What proof you have that Jesus (pbuh) said those words & not the author of the gospel.
Unlike you, I don't have an issue with circular arguments per se. Some circular arguments are pointless and silly - but every one of the major philosophical positions including reason, experience, and revelation ALL commence with an axiom - that cannot be proved except by itself. If an axiom can be proved by something other than itself then it is not an axiom and ought to be discarded. I am surprised that a scholar such as yourself is apparently ignorant of this doctrine of philosophy. That many others here are ignorant is unsurprising - but you - hmmm - curious really. It seems you might have been more influenced by the West than you are letting on. The Western logic of Aristotle and Plato and Socrates - (The big three) seems to hold more sway over you than the eastern - so called water logic. I find that interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR QUOTE OF EMBARRASSMENT AGAIN: "That you see my words as a contradiction does not surprise me. Nevertheless, I stand by my words. "Of course you have to say that you stand by your words that are in BLATANT CONTRADICTION, because the time limit to change them into being coherent had already passed! What's the time limit on this forum to edit your post, 30 minutes? Whoops, LOL!
Let me repeat myself - please read it very slowly - I would not want you to miss it again. I am very comfortable with my words. There is no contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I never said every atheist - I said many end up in prison.I haven't said you did. I quoted you full and in context. Your quote states "MOST" not all. Look, here it is again...
Behold another bold face lie by the master of trolls. "Many end up in prison". Not most. Read it again and weep - creep.
Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead. Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian. #33So according to you, most of the atheist that you meet you regard as "kiddie fiddlers".You do assure us:"To be clear I own all of my words" .#54Or are you saying that these were not your own words but someone else's'?
The rest of this is not worth responding too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Define the word religion.
Already have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ethang is a much more decent person than you. You stalk people - creep. He is much worthier to emulate than you.
I never said every atheist - I said many end up in prison. And this is true. the stats are available for anyone with half a brain.
Created: