Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Tradesecret wrote: Sin is the issue for a Holy God. It is what separated humanity from God. It is why Jesus died on the cross.God's solution to the world's problems is to deal with sin. That is what he has done through Jesus. #119
Stephen said "To pay for and wash away the sins of the world," and Stephen said "Obviously with "sin" still abound in the world your gods idea of cleansing the world of "sin"via a sacrifice of the blood of "his own son". https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6878/post-links/298255
You can embolden and underline what I wrote. But it is not the same as how you misquoted and misinterpreted my words.
And I am saying that according to your own words that the blood sacrifice of his own son obviously wasn't enough as "sin" is still abound on the earth. Attempting to backpaddle on, and rewrite yet another one of your bullshit comments doesn't work. You simply make it all up as you go regardless of what is actually written in scripture.....
I know what you said. You are wrong. I never said that. In fact you are changing the entire subject. Surprise surprise. So when you talk about backpaddle - you clearly know you have once again missed the entire point.
My initial response was to a question about sin. I indicated and I repeat - God dealt with the problem of sin by sending Jesus. I never said Jesus washed the whole world with his blood. But without his death on the cross - none of humanity would be redeemed from their sin. This is Christian theology 101. I didn't make it up. You don't have to like it or agree with it. But it is still Christian theology. And I didn't make it despite your insinuations.
For the record - I don't believe Jesus died for every person in the world.I agree; but why not every person in the world? What was the point of a torturous blood sacrifice anyway? Why couldn't your all powerful god simply say all sin is forgiven for everyone? Is it because you accept that Jesus HIMSELF SAID I came to save "ONLY lost " Jews! at (apparently) a risk to his own life, as the bible makes perfectly clear?
You can do your own homework Stevie. You have a bible. You have the internet. You probably have a big stack of books that can help you. It is not my job to explain these very basic things to you. Most Sunday Schools ought to be able to help you out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
The truth is not decided by numbers.
Many commentators also declare that Revelation predates the destruction of Jerusalem. It is typically liberal scholars who take the later date - since they don't believe in prophecy.
Kenneth Gentry - Reference Material – End Times Study - very good book for your attention. Before Jerusalem Fell.
Come back and discuss it with me - AFTER you have read it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
To pay for and wash away the sins of the world, you bible ignorant dunce. See your own comment at (A) above. Obviously with "sin" still abound in the world your gods idea of cleansing the world of "sin"via a sacrifice of the blood of "his own son" doesn't seem to have gone anywhere in eradicating the sins of the world now does it Reverend "Tradey" Tradsecrete?
Thanks for making it clearer for me Stephen.
It seems you want to play "pedant" with the word "world". Ok.
I said by the way "God's solution to the world's problems is to deal with sin. That is what he has done through Jesus. "https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6878/post-links/297453
Nevertheless, I DID NOT say in that spot that Jesus paid for and washed away the sins of the world. I said God's solution to the world's problem is to deal with sin. That is what he has done through Jesus. Please at least quote me correctly. At least then you might read what I wrote and perhaps understand what I am saying.
For the record - I don't believe Jesus died for every person in the world. I don't think that Jesus paid for every person's sin. God's way of dealing with sin - was Jesus paying the price of it. But does Jesus pay the price for every bit of sin? Obviously not - or people would not die. People die. Death is the wages of sin.
But every person redeemed by Christ - helps to light up the world. And this changes the world bit by bit - one person at a time. It was not meant to be an immediate thing for the whole world at once. It will however change over time - one person at a time - one family at a time - until the world is reconciled with God.
If Jesus did die for every person - then every person is saved. This is not what the Bible says. It clearly says not everyone will go to heaven. Hence Jesus DID NOT DIE for everyone.
But this does not imply that the world will not improve over time. In fact it suggests it will improve at a pace which is perfect for the world.
So once again - you misquote me - to make a strawman argument. Well at least you are consistently boring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So the torturous blood sacrifice of his son wasn't enough then?
enough for what?
And neither is baptism?
please fill out your question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
faith is a set of doctrines.How is this untrue of a jehovah witness or a bhudist?
I never said it was. Science too has doctrines.
A peer reviewed scientific observation does not make the science true, does it? Like a consensus of scientific opinion does not make it true either. It might be true - but it might be wrong. Studies show that science itself has a half life. Science changes.Precisely. Science self corrects. Religion cannot. This addition of possible fault and subsequent revision is exactly how science advances.
Religion often corrects itself. We might say the bible is true. But we certainly also say that our interpretation of it is not. It is man's interpretation.
My point is that people trust or believe in the principles of logic - not by a logical process - but out of faithThere us a difference between "faith" in something whose efficacy is measurable and faith in things unseen. I have a reasonable expectation based on past experience. You have a book which makes a claim. The two are unequal as pathways to truth.
You may be correct. But the principle of logic is on faith unseen. Past experience is not the arbiter of truth. Scientific textbooks are simply people's testimonies.
I just don't think all scientists actually use the scientific method properly.And this the peer review process. In any case all humans use the scientific method to some degree. It is how a baby learns to wiggle its toes. That it is sometimes improperly observed doesn't mean it is not the single best method ever discovered by humans for discovering truths about the natural world. Opposed to religion which even if you are right about personally (which I remain skeptical of) has led many people to untruth. People like bhudists and muslims... unless you do think they believe truth.
Peer review is a bollox. I have seen peer reviewed articles by doctors during this pandemic which are anti-vax. I have seen scientists purport to use the same system. The problem is - factions. And there are many of them. Consensus is not proof. I agree that many religions - even Christianity at times have led people up the garden path. It is not however a reason to throw out the baby. Science has led people up the garden path.
How does one prove logic to be logically true? You can't.Meaningless. Word saladLogic is not true or false it is efficacious.
Nuh. It is full of meaning. You just don't like it. The principles or laws of Logic are what many scientists would use to prove a point. Yet, its ability to do so - requires validity in order to use it.
I love scienceIndeed you need science to maintain your life but I don't need any god(s) in mine. Science is the thing we both agree exists and is useful so it is a bad example when trying to convince me of some faith based claim.
All my point is - is that i am not opposed to science. Also I am not attempting to convince you that God exists. Only that everything - has a faith basis. Of which you have been unable to refute. Hence your rejection of God is obviously your own personal usage of blind faith.
Without God, a person has to endeavour to construct a position to enable chance, randomness, to develop or evolve or bring laws into existence from nothing. This is faith. And it is blind faith. Not reasonable faith.That's funny. I don't believe in chance and I'm unaware of anything truly random. (Being a skeptic that means I don't believe in the random)Also and I hate to be a stickler but you are aware that no current cosmology suggests that anything came form nothing right?
Ok.
Hey since we both like experiments let's try one. Explain to me how I can confirm for myself that gravity exists and then explain how I can do the same with some god(s) and we can discuss which method is more likely to yield results.
What is gravity? How do we measure such a thing? What causes gravity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It (sin) is why Jesus died on the cross.Actually assuming any historicity in the story I'm pretty sure Jesus was crucified for being a socialist, ridiculing the rich is dangerous buisness.
Funny one. Jesus was no socialist. He was a big fan of voluntarism. A big fan of private institutions. And not of compulsion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I mean you both have "faith" and so does a bhudist. Pedantry aside it is different than having faith in mathematical truth or peer reviewed scientific observation. As an outsider how am I to accurately assess which "faith" is "correct" to have? What is the difference between the book(s) that you all point to as claim and evidence all in one?
Fair questions to ask.
I mean you both have "faith" and so does a bhudist
Yes and no. My faith is a set of doctrines. It is not just a feeling. The Faith is a set of doctrines that bind me to the Living God.
A peer reviewed scientific observation does not make the science true, does it? Like a consensus of scientific opinion does not make it true either. It might be true - but it might be wrong. Studies show that science itself has a half life. Science changes.
My point is that people trust or believe in the principles of logic - not by a logical process - but out of faith. I love science - I just don't think all scientists actually use the scientific method properly. A mathematical truth requires the system of logic to be logically true. How does one prove logic to be logically true? You can't. You just have to believe it is. And moreover you have to believe it is always true - by faith. I am happy to say it - because I believe in a God who is eternal and always true - and who created such laws.
Without God, a person has to endeavour to construct a position to enable chance, randomness, to develop or evolve or bring laws into existence from nothing. This is faith. And it is blind faith. Not reasonable faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That old "sin" thing again.Do you really think that an omni-sensible GOD would be worried about sin.....Or ritual methodology for that matter.I find it odd that theists who revere an omni-everything GOD, always make it out to be so stupid.
Sin is the difference between heaven and earth. Sin is the issue for a Holy God. It is what separated humanity from God. It is why Jesus died on the cross. It is the problem between people.
God is not worried about sin. What a silly thing to say. Yet that does not mean that God is going to tolerate sin.
God's solution to the world's problems is to deal with sin. That is what he has done through Jesus.
One heart at a time - reconciling humanity to God.
Saying God should not be concerned about sin is like saying humans should not be worried about murder or pedophilia. Or that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We are not arguing about biblical truth. 949havoc is not arguing about biblical truth - he is arguing for extra biblical truth. Nor are we arguing over the interpretation of a text.Your assertion is as helpful as two CHOs arguing the science of the pandemic and coming to two different conclusions. Both cannot be correct - and yet both claim the science of their positions.The bible is sufficient.Then why the disagreement? I feel like a book which represented the word of any respectable god would be clear cut enough to avoid confusion like this. Terrible communication skills that. Apparently not part of his omnipotence.
You make an interesting point. And I respect your opinion. The disagreement exists - as it will - in any sphere - between the orthodox and those who are not orthodox. The Bible is pretty clear. 99% of churches hold to similar views and doctrines. As I have said in another place- the main points of disagreement are in respect of church polity, and the method or mode of the sacraments. I am a Presbyterian. Yet I agree with most of the doctrines of the Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian, Baptist, etc. It is only very a minor number of positions I disagree with. And this is entirely consistent throughout the orthodox or mainline churches. The Mormon church or the JW or even the SDA have a different revelation and therefore different doctrines.
949havoc stands outside the Christian Tradition - that is why we disagree. I would not argue such with most of the Christian Religion - but for those outside of what is considered acceptable - there is and MUST be disagreement.
I don't see it as reflection on God at all. Sin perhaps. But that is humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
-->@Tradesecret"The Bible"Which translation /interpretation might that be?
I hold to an inclusive view. I don't take the view that any specific translation is better than another per se- although there is good science to differentiate the way each is translated. The fact is every translation has multiple experts translating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You two arguing about biblical "truth" weakens both your positions.IF the bible is the TRUTH but only "when interpreted correctly" THEN the bible is by necessity an insufficient source of truth as a stand alone work.If the bible is insufficient to reveal truth as a stand alone work THEN without some definitive method of determining which interpretation is "correct" both your arguments are equally uncompelling.
We are not arguing about biblical truth. 949havoc is not arguing about biblical truth - he is arguing for extra biblical truth. Nor are we arguing over the interpretation of a text.
Your assertion is as helpful as two CHOs arguing the science of the pandemic and coming to two different conclusions. Both cannot be correct - and yet both claim the science of their positions.
The bible is sufficient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So the Bible is a mish mash of made up stuff.We already know that.And Mormon is just another Abrahamic business model.So what's new?
The Bible is pretty clear and well established.
The Book of Mormon well - an American invention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
that verse may well indicate that people who add to or take away from the bible have certain consequences for them,No. That verse applied only to John's Revelation; that book alone. You still say it refers to the Bible, which did not exist in the era Revelation was written, and not for several hundred added years. Come on, you know this stuff, just don't want to admit it.
So you want to continue the strawman argument? Why should that surprise me? I understand some people's point of view. I suspect you chose not to read the book I referred you to. It has great arguments that you have totally ignored. And then to refer me to other stuff. Why should I read that when you refuse to read what I suggest?
To add body to what I said: The book of Revelation existed prior to AD 70. That is when fresh revelation finished. I know this stuff and I will forcefully prove it if necessary.
The NT was completed by AD 70.
Not at all. As a complete tome, all 27 books, was not assembled and canonized until the ninth decade of the fourth century, https://religionfacts.com/canonization-new-testamentnot 70 AD.And John probably composed Revelation in the last decade of the first century https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html
As I said above, writing the doctrine of the law of gravity does not mean gravity did not exist prior to that time. You simply refuse to acknowledge this. Your problem, not mine.
John composed revelation prior to AD 70 or the Spirit of God was wrong. Daniel 9:27. The fact that you miss this point is understandable. Children or novices ought to pretend they are read to lead. You are a novice. And you do not know your Scriptures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
That is when Revelation was "sealed up". And that is when the NT was completed.And that, as you say, is incorrect. Was there a New Testament when John completed Revelation? No, not yet. I know the verse declaring that no one should alter that book. That book was Revelation, not the entire Bible, which was yet centuries into the future. Come on , you know this. So you say God no longer reveals to prophets. Which God? God the Father? That appears to be your interpretation, by your instance on Hebrews. So, God, the Son, Jesus Christ. And he said to his disciples that after his departure, he would send the Holy Ghost, the God, Holy Spirit, to speak to man. I, ay least, acknowledge prophets beyond the NT. I acknowledge prophets, today, and whether the inspiration to them, and to myself, frankly, for affairs that concern me, personally, bot not for the world at large because I do not have that responsibility, is by God the Father, Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, it is revelation, and it matters not, according to Jesus, who is the inspiriator; it is all as if from the mouth of God, the Father.
I did not refer to the verse you are pointing to at the end of the book of Revelation. Because although that verse may well indicate that people who add to or take away from the bible have certain consequences for them, I also know that verse is equivalent to the verses elsewhere in the OT and may well have a different meaning. I NEVER use that particular verse for referring to the end of fresh revelation from God, save and except when to offer support for the primary verses and contexts in Scripture. I think pointing me to this verse and then dismissing is - akin to a strawman argument.
The NT was completed by AD 70. Yes there are conjectures about times that the books were written. Yet the evidence clearly fits the timeframe. I refer you to a delightful book by Dr Kenneth Gentry. It's free and you can get it on pdf. It has its flaws - but overall it is well written and argued. Your argument seems to imply that the law of gravity was not really in existence until the scientists postulated the law. A little like a birth certificate somehow makes the birth real.
As for your notion that there are prophets beyond the Scripture, that is a matter entirely for you - but it is not Christian nor biblical. Which God? There is only ONE God. My words did not infer the Father. Nor did they not. God spoke in the past - that is God the TRINITY. GOD spoke now through his Son. AGAIN GOD the Trinity. The Spirit of God did remind Jesus' disciples of all that Jesus had said. This is what the NT is.
Your revelation is not revelation from GOD. GOD has sealed the vision until the LAST DAY. This is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 13:8. This is the meaning of Hebrews 1. This is the meaning of Daniel 9. It is consistent and it is entirely spirit breathed.
And thus, the Book of Mormon. Another testament of Jesus Christ. Another scripture. If you read it, cover to cover, and applied the challenge therein to find the truth of it, you would know. There's more. Gods do not finish speaking to man. Never have, never will.
But that is the point - I have read the book of Mormon from cover to cover and I did apply the challenge. And my prayer for wisdom was answered. Why won't you accept my testimony? Do you think that the Holy Spirit lied to me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I also agree with you and Elijah.#78.....What some ridiculous" baloney.All meaningless ritual-speak.OK...So it fires your conditioned neuronsAs it fires my conditioned neuronsSuch is meaning.
yep
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.How and what "wisdom" did he bestow on you?Stephen, LOL!Do you want to play this game? Ok.They are serious questions . I am not playing any game. Stop avoiding the question. You have made an astounding claim.I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.Yes you have already told us that you asked for wisdom. You haven't told us how he imparted this" wisdom" to you or what it was. Stop avoiding the questionSo, when you are ready Reverend "Tradey" I am sure some here would like to hear it. Especially myself.Hi Stephen,as I said to secularmerlin, my above comments were intended to draw 949havoc into conversation. I do not intend to respond further until he or she responds.Until he responds there is with respect nothing to discuss with those outside of his or my faith. No offence meant, this is simply an inhouse discussion.My arse!. This is a discussion board where you have made an extraordinary and astounding claim that you are now refusing point blank to support or discuss.I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.How did he give this wisdom to you and what was it?I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.So of all the questions that you could have asked your god about life and the universe this is the question that you chose?as I said to secularmerlin, my above comments were intended to draw 949havoc into conversation.Well we can only hope that 949havoc has the good sense to ask you the bleedin' obvious question here.You are full of shite Reverend "Tradey" and are helpless without the interjections of your other personas.Get well soon all three of you.
Your daftness is overwhelming today Stephen. If you understood Mormon theology, you would realize that I have mirrored his basis for everything. He is now in the situation whereby he is paralyzed. If he denies my position - he denies his own. Yet as you will have noticed - his response ENTIRELY omitted to discuss that which you wanted to know. The question is why?
I thought you wanted to play this game. LOL! But it seems you don't even know there was a game.
That is ok. Back to sleep Stephen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Hebrews 1:1-3 specifically says God spoke in various ways in the past but now - speaks through Jesus.And Jesus says that whether it is by his mouth, or by the prophets, it is the same. Since Jesus also said the he and the Father are one [not one body, but separate personages who are completely united in thought and deed], I think that means that it does not matter whether Father or Jesus speak. It is the same.
Well that is where you are incorrect. In the past - God spoke through the prophets - but not now. In the past he spoke through angels. But not now. In the past God spoke through dreams but not now. Now He speaks through Jesus - his words as the apostles recorded it and understood as the NT. Daniel 9 which you obviously did not look up sets the time frame as AD 70. That is when Revelation was "sealed up". And that is when the NT was completed. What you think therefore becomes irrelevant.
Mormons don't generally understand the bible very much. So I can understand your problem hereI don't accept that moniker, by the way. Beside the point. That's an awfully wide brush you paint with, my friend. I could just as easily say the same of just about any group, but I know that would be unfair to individuals who may very well understand it implicitly. I do in 4 languages. And I've lost count of then number of times having read it in its entirety. Yeah, yeah, one can say mere reading does not necessarily imply comprehension, but, again, how do you know?
Yeah ok. My apologies for lumping you in with the Mormons - but you did you refer to the book of Mormon. So that's on you. Is there a reason you did not respond to my testimony? It is as valid as yours. Surely you would agree?
And the bible is written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.And translated and transliterated numerous times by people who may not have been so inspired. Requires personal study, pondering, and prayer. Knowledge of at least one of the alleged original languages doesn't hurt.
The bible is written by God and Man just like Jesus is both God and Man. The human aspect is what makes it genuine from a human perspective and the divine from the divine. Reading the bible is not the same as understanding it. Most people can't read anyway. Try reading the book "how to read a book" - Mortimer Adler. Brilliant read.
To say baptism means submersion is not what the bible says.βαπτίζω - Greek, meaning immersion [in water]. I'll let you look up immersion.
Immersion does not mean submersion. Two different words. One means to do with water - the other under water. The book of Mormon - changes immersion to submersion. Look at Mark 1: 8. It uses the term twice. Once for water and once for Spirit. How does the Christ baptize with water? Check out Acts and Pentecost. It was by a "pouring out". That is the picture that SUBMERSION misses. It is also another reason why the Mormon church is a cult rather than a denomination.
I'll thank you to stop your ridicule. I will not repeat you childish language. You have no idea of that of which you jest. Until you do, just shut it. Please. What I wear is my business, my devotion, and my choice. Just as I respect others' prayer shawls, yamakas, albs, cinctures, clerical collars, etc. Just stop and keep it civil, please. Your infantile criticism says much of a lack of honest Christianity. Be a saint.
I agree with Elijah. The ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed. Like the prophets of Baal deserve ridicule - so do the prophets of Mormon. Yet, I have often been ridiculed by the prophets of Mormonism - and their so called high priests - so it is fair to return the favor to them.
Again, why are you ignoring my testimony? What you wear is your own business. Just don't pretend it is some kind of present from God. It is not Christian - it is superstitious mumbo jumbo.
If I choose to call you out - that is my prerogative. After all, it is the religion of Christ and his name and honour that I care about. Not yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is amusing about it? Atheist's essentially do the same thing.You all have the same standard of evidence. Faith. How could you possibly distinguish whose faith is correct? More data required. Atheism doesn't require you to accept anything on faith. Or at least if you want to be pedantic and define faith so broadly that every belief is faith then at the least there is a difference between the kind of faith where someone asks you why you believe that and you give good reasons and evidence and the kind of faith where someone asks you why you believe and you are forced to say "I just have faith"
Sorry you think that. I don't use faith as a standard. I use reason. Atheism is based on faith. I give plenty of reasons for my particular view of the world. And you do too. But it is still faith. Reason requires faith. I never just resort to the nonsense - that it is just faith.
Gee - holiness means what? Acting in accordance with what is right. I would liken it to justice.So if an atheist does what is right and just they are holy atheists? If not then your definition needs a little work.
No you are missing the point. Holiness is acting in accordance with right. This is quite different to what the atheist does. No offence - but it comes back to the definition of right or good.
\
superstitious is trusting in the mysterious underpinnings of irrationality. Things like magic, or rituals, or the ilk.At least from an outside perspective that does sound awfully like religion.
Just like atheism sounds like superstition to others.
But this is not meant to be a peeing contest.
All I wanted to do is bring 949havoc to the table.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
beliefs that are unsupported by logic and evidence
These account for many things - like the principles of logic, or perhaps science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is a difference between holiness and superstition.Like a measurable one or is this just meant in the spirit of a bald assertion?
Gee - holiness means what? Acting in accordance with what is right. I would liken it to justice.
and
superstitious is trusting in the mysterious underpinnings of irrationality. Things like magic, or rituals, or the ilk.
Hence - the two are quite distinct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is amusing to me to see theist acuse each other of having false religion. Just a personal opinion.
What is amusing about it? Atheist's essentially do the same thing.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I suspect that when people are almost dead or even dead for a moment that there is a real likelihood of brain damage. Their brain is somehow synapsed. And the chemicals running amok.I would not base a theology on these experiences.You have this a bit backwards, the "theology" of the existence of the soul and spirit beings is not based off NDE's. Rather NDE's are simply a product of the reality that the soul exists independent of the physical body. That fact is demonstrated by an extension of conscious experience outside the confines of the human body and brain during experiences of temporary stages of death, as well as spiritual and religious observations throughout the history of the world. When the body, heart and brain shut off (whether permanently or temporary) the soul can freely experience life outside of the body. And since the soul exists even while the body is well, it can also encounter many different types of transcendental observations and experiences with that which transcends physical boundaries while still in the body.
I thank you for your comments. Just for the record, I do not think the theology of the existence of the spirit is based on NDE.
The evidence is strongly against, if not certainly against the claim that NDE experiences are the results of brain damage. The actual effects of brain damage have absolutely zero relation to NDE's lol, damage to the brain includes having physical symptoms that coincide with such an infliction....It really only exposes your lack of clarity and research of the subject according to sources and testimonies that are not speculating to support materialism. Symptoms of brain damage do not correlate with testimonies of conscious experience outside of the body.
Where is this evidence? Can you refer to studies?
The existence of the soul and spirit beings have long been introduced through almost every single spiritual source known to man including your Bible. At least this one feature has been universally prominent and accepted throughout the entire religious kingdom and supported even beyond that through NDE's and paranormal encounters. It isn't something weird, taboo or strictly affiliated with any single source it is a universal proposition/phenomenon. If anything, it is all that surrounds the reality of the soul that tends to become variant and contradicting.
I honestly do not know how this is supposed to demonstrate evidence.
"Beliefs" regarding what happens to souls after death are where the boundaries of sanity start to dissipate. Despite that variance in dogma, there is a continuous, harmonious thread of knowledge that the soul exists independent of the physical body and so when a soul loses their human form they move on from this world.It is therefore impossible that a soul remains in the grave with their mortal decomposing earthly vessel. Losing the material body is as simple as removing a mask, costume or clothing, there is no continual attachment that occurs when the body is removed from the equation.
Are you suggesting that the soul or the spirit is eternal?
Yet strangely, Christians have adopted this unorthodox and bizarre belief that human souls will remain in the dirt until a supposed resurrection....meanwhile the rest of the spiritual, religious world continue on where spirit beings exist and permeate the entire creation of God but somehow a sect of Christians believe souls wait their demise in the grave where their own physical bodies are rotting! this is in direct contrast with evidence and the understood relationship between the physical body and the soul.
Not quite accurate. Christians tend to say - that when a believer dies, their body or whatever is left remains on earth and that their spirit goes to be with God in Heaven. Christians are split about what happens to the non-believer. Some say the non-believer goes immediately to Hell to wait for the final judgment. Others say that they remain in the ground until judgment day. And then rise for the final judgment. Others say they go to heaven as well. Others say they die and immediately are annihilated. Catholics sometimes throw purgatory into the mix.
Believers also receive a resurrected body. So the person is not just spiritual but physical as well. There is a difference between the Greek and Hebrews ideas of the soul.
Tradesecret doesn't believe and won't accept any other options so the evidence of NDE's and any notions of reincarnation and alternative solutions simply will be avoided and shunned of course, they are just inferior concepts to him for whatever reasons. According to Trade, human souls must remain in the grave before they are appointed to hell or heaven (if they be so lucky).Souls can go to those places, as they are very much apart of God's vast creation but each soul will move forward after death, there is no waiting period because again...there is no connection between a dead corpse and live soul.
Again not quite true. I described certain phenomena in the bible I did not understand that might be described as NDE. I do discount reincarnation. It makes no sense and is counter intuitive to its own reasoning. Christians do - totally think there is a connection between the corpse and the spirit. We believe in the resurrected body. It is one of the reasons that Christians historically have preferred burial as opposed to cremation.
The fear of considering concepts outside of controlled dogma is the type of garbage I was raised in most of my childhood and young adult life, the freedom of belief and logic are not pursued in strict religious squares. "You must believe this or there will be consequences"....Though, I already knew (even then) that when we die the soul leaves the physical body then and there. Not only was it innate to me but it was also clear through understanding much of the Bible and many other spiritual sources of information.
You have simply gone from one type of perceived fear to another type of fear. Christians honestly don't believe you can scare people into the kingdom. The entire theology of election proves emphatically against that idea. Salvation BELONGS to God - not to the individual. We pray to God to save people. We don't pray to individuals to get saved.
The Bible has many examples of spiritual beings not only currently existing but having relations/communication with humans, why then would anyone believe that this relationship ceases at physical death? Angels, demons, saints and prophets are permitted to roam God's creation but we as souls on earth lie in the grave with a rotting corpse while every other soul outside of this planet engages life? it is a nonsensical and impossible speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.How and what "wisdom" did he bestow on you?Stephen, LOL!Do you want to play this game? Ok.They are serious questions . I am not playing any game. Stop avoiding the question. You have made an astounding claim.I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.Yes you have already told us that you asked for wisdom. You haven't told us how he imparted this" wisdom" to you or what it was. Stop avoiding the questionSo, when you are ready Reverend "Tradey" I am sure some here would like to hear it. Especially myself.
Hi Stephen,
as I said to secularmerlin, my above comments were intended to draw 949havoc into conversation. I do not intend to respond further until he or she responds.
Until he responds there is with respect nothing to discuss with those outside of his or my faith. No offence meant, this is simply an inhouse discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't get to wear the magic fertility underwear.Is this really sillier than thinking the most supreme being in the universe that created everything great and small, good and evil, beautiful and ugly would be personally offended if two penises bump together?
There is a difference between holiness and superstition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.How? I opened my mouth and prayed to God.Well I think the operative questions in that case are did you receive an answer? What form did that answer take? How did you determine the answer was from an external force? Assuming some outside force how do you determine its source?
Hi Secularmerlin, the point of my above comments was to draw 949havoc into conversation. It was not me making a theological or even an experiential argument. I am hopeful that 949havoc might engage in this discussion.
I am not intending to discuss it outside of that context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.How and what "wisdom" did he bestow on you?
Stephen, LOL!
Do you want to play this game? Ok.
I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.
How? I opened my mouth and prayed to God.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
this is a side track question... but what do you think of near death experiences? you seem like the type that would view it as new age mumbo jumbo, or maybe the work of satan, or maybe liberalism run amok.
Great question. What is near death experience? Is it someone who has died or someone who is near death? I have heard of all sorts of stories. In the church I grew up - a Church of Christ. People would sometimes get up and talk about their near death experience.
The bible tells me that - when someone dies they either go to be with Jesus in Paradise or the current heaven or they stay dead until judgment Day.
I don't believe in purgatory. I don't believe in reincarnation.
I think when you die - you stay dead mostly. There are examples of people in the bible of people dying and then coming back to life again. Paul talks of going to the third heaven. John gives his experience of heaven. Several others have died - but there is no record of what happened after they died and before they came back to life. There is the parable Jesus gave about Lazarus and the rich man. But it is a parable.
Seeing lights - watching strings and cords - ghosts - and big chasms. ??????
I don't see it as new age or even as satanic. Nor do I see it as liberalism.
I suspect that when people are almost dead or even dead for a moment that there is a real likelihood of brain damage. Their brain is somehow synapsed. And the chemicals running amok.
I would not base a theology on these experiences. So in other words, I won't judge them. For me they are people's experiences - nothing more and nothing less. But certainly nothing I would build my life or death upon.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
what's your opinion on why only healings seem miraculous these days, and the wide array of miracles that happened in the bible dont seem to happen nowadays? is god trying to leave plausible deniability to maintain faith?
For me - the questions of miracles in the bible are to do with signs.
What is the sign that they were pointing to? At any particular time.
And are these signs things that have already been understood? And moreover what is the sign that is still necessary?
For instance I think the church is a sign now. Not the building but the people. And so is baptism a sign. As is communion.
I am not sure what other signs are still necessary. The church is a living miracle.
I don't go so much into healings or other so called miracles. I am what is known as a "Cessationist" in theological terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Who, after all, is cheeky enough to limit God and tell him his is now mute?
I reckon it would be pretty cheeky and silly to call God mute. But on the other hand if God says - I have said my bit - and now I will wait until I am ready to speak again - then it would be pretty cheeky and rude to say otherwise, wouldn't?
The Bible tells us in many places that God has spoken lots - but has also stopped giving fresh revelation. Hebrews 1:1-3 specifically says God spoke in various ways in the past but now - speaks through Jesus.
Do you understand the contrast that the writer is giving. In the past -/ and now. In the past God did this - but now he does this. What changed? Why does God change this aspect of revelation? What would be the point?
Mormons don't generally understand the bible very much. So I can understand your problem here. Yet, it is there. The same as the book of Daniel actually gives us a timeframe for when revelation - as in fresh revelation would CEASE.
Now it is not cheeky to say God has stopped talking to us in a fresh way - if God himself has stated it to be the case.
The book of Mormon is flawed on lots of accounts anyway. Just take its mode of baptism for instance. Obviously written apart from and against the revelation of God. To say baptism means submersion is not what the bible says. And the bible is written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But hey what would I know. I don't get to wear the magic fertility underwear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
The book of Mormon does not hold any authority for Christians.Depends on the Christian to whom you refer, doesn't it. Hell, I know people who remove pages of their Bibles because they don't understand or they disagree with what is said, so your same comment applies, doesn't it?
No not really. Christians hold the bible - the OT and the NT to be authoritative. True some Catholics and Episcopalians give the old Apocrypha a bit as well. But even they accept it is not quite as authoritative. Mormons are not even Christians, are they?
The book of Mormon is a fake document. How do I know that? Well it is because I prayed to the Holy Spirit for wisdom and the Holy Spirit told me - "don't trust the book of Mormon - it is a fake.". And then after I went and took my book of Mormon and threw it is the bin, I experienced this amazing peace in my heart. I was filled with good feelings and thoughts. And since then my life has just been blessed in so many ways. Now whenever someone tries to read the Book of Mormon to me - I get these terrible headaches. And my mind becomes all muddled and confused. And we know - at least those of us who read the bible, that confusion is caused by the devil.
So please excuse me, if I choose to listen to the Holy Spirit and therefore reject the Book of Mormon.
Just like the NT does not hold any authority for the Jews.There are Jews who convert to Christianity and accept additional scripture.Who, after all, is cheeky enough to limit God and tell him his is now mute? Apparently, even you.
I don't have too many cheeky bones in my body. Ripping pages out of the bible is pretty silly. And who would limit God. I asked him for wisdom and he gave it to me. Are you saying I should not listen to the Holy Spirit? Are you telling me that God is limited to the Mormon Church and what it teaches? Respectfully, it seems to me that you are wanting to limit my view to your view.
But hey, what would I know? I simply asked God for wisdom and he gave to me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
The book of Mormon does not hold any authority for Christians.
Just like the NT does not hold any authority for the Jews.
There is no EVIDENCE that Jesus ever went to America.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Revelation 1:13-16 gives a pretty good description.
Head and hair white like wool and snow.
Eyes blazing like fire.
Feet are bronze.
Voice like rushing waters.
His face like the sun.
So it may well be that Jesus is golden in appearance as the sun.
That sort of captures every culture doesn't?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you agree with Jesus' standard of what "good" is? #35Please clarify what you think Jesus standard of good is.So you don't know. Just as I thought.Jesus in both parables of the Samaritan and the shepherd gives examples of what good is yet you have to come here after all of your years of training under all those academic scholars, preachers and teachers and ask the question "what is good"?Tradesecrete wrote: I do understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church.And you obviously learned a lot less from your "Hebrew teacher"#45 🤣🤣🤣
LOL!
Just because I asked you to clarify what you mean - does not mean anything more than I am asking you to clarify what you mean. I don't know what you mean or think Jesus' standard of what good is. How could I know that UNLESS I can read your mind?
You obviously have a viewpoint. I expect it will be different from my view. Hence, me asking you to clarify what you mean. In order for us to be talking about the same thing.
People do understand the word "good" differently. Even in the passage above Jesus and the rich man have different understandings. Your attempt to somehow make this about something else is predictable. It is one of your ways of avoiding answering questions. But unless you can come up with something, I am not going to play along.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Strange way to unite the tribes of Israel, wasn't it, Reverend "Tradey".Matthew 15:24 King James VersionBut he answered and said, "I was sent only the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Given that this is only your unique perspective, it is little wonder I would give it thought.
I never said Jesus was trying to unite the tribes.
AND nor do I think that Jesus' words there in Matthew 15:24 are meant to infer that he is not interested in the salvation of all tribes and nations in accordance with the prophecies of Abraham.
so perhaps you might elaborate on your own doctrine here. After all, this seems to be the one spot in the bible that supports your view. Where else do we see it? After all, most scholars would never stoop to understand a doctrine from a vague place. But rather seek to find places which are not disputable and work from there.
Your logic would be appreciated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
LOL!
So you have blocked me. But assuming the benefit of the doubt.
What do you mean so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you agree with Jesus' standard of what "good" is? #35
Please clarify what you think Jesus standard of good is and then perhaps we can discuss whether your opinion is disputed.
Or are you simply intent on causing an unnecessary argument on another members thread rather than answer the question?
I have no intention of doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, you - not me - asked a question.Nope! You asked " what is good" and before I had asked anything at all on this thread. Here>> #10..............Nope. You are wrong. I asked Deb-8-a-bull what she / he thought good was.Typical complete denial when caught out bullshitting. Simply show me a question that I asked before post your post #10?It matters not who you asked, the fact remains that I asked you a question and you simply dodged it.A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.Luke 18:18-19.What also is interesting is that this idea of good is one that Jesus seems to be holding alone.Correct. And I have highlighted that fact already you clown. HERE>>Stephen wrote: "Both are examples of " good" in the opinion of Jesus.Yet you are here asking "what is good" ? Or do you not agree with Jesus' standard of what "good" is? #35And you dodged that question too.Get well soon Reverend "Tradey"
NO I have not dodged the question. what a pathetic response. I disagree with you. LOL!
What question have i dodged?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes you keep coming back to this.
I disagree.
As do all the Gentiles in the NT and the entire Christian Church.
Noting this DOES NOT DISAGREE with Jesus but with the interpretation of what people say he was saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Similarly it could be asked ; Why didn't he just create woman from the dust of the ground and a quick blow up her nostrils as he had the Adam? Why go to the trouble of putting the Adam to sleep, opening him up, removing a rib and stitching him back up?I suppose if this was to happen today it would be called genetic engineering?
I would relate it to another excellent example of resurrection in the OT. A topic I have looked at elsewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, you - not me - asked a question.Nope! You asked " what is good" and before I had asked anything at all on this thread. Here>> #10..............
Nope. You are wrong. I asked Deb-8-a-bull what she / he thought good was. I was not asking because I did not have an answer. Stop twisting things around. You then jumped into the discussion and asked me to answer the question. It was your question to me - in our discrete discussion - so again stop twisting facts.
Tradesecret wrote: Firstly, what is good?................and you have been swerving and dodging my own question to you since.
It is you who are swerving and dodging. I have answered twice now.
Jesus says no one is "good" , including himself yet Christians refer to the Samaritan as "good" and Jesus calls the shepherd "good" . This then is clearly a contradiction on his part or on the part of very forgetful and contradictory bible scribes.Yes that is true. But not including himself.
Wrong! Stop trying to rewrite scripture AGAIN, Reverend.Jesus clearly points to himself first when asking "why do you calm me good, no one is good" . Jesus does not exclude himself. Stop lying
What Jesus says is ambiguous. I say that because what he says has a couple of plausible interpretations.
The first is: Jesus is saying "Don't call me good because only God is good and I am not God".
The second is: "You unknowingly call me good, even though it is true, because I am God".
Jesus nowhere in this texts says "I am not good". Nor does he say "I am not God". He says "none is good, save God".
Good interpretation of this text does not start with the ambiguities in this text, but rather in the plain teaching of other texts.
So in that respect, I am not going there. Stephen. I accept that your interpretation is one point of view. Others including myself come to a different point of view. Jesus never denies he was good. Does he? He does three things. Firstly, he queries why this person calls him good. Notice it is not a denial. Secondly, Jesus points out the obvious fact that no one is good save one. The obvious question is who is the one? Again it is not a denial of himself being the one. You can try and inject your denial in there but it is not there. And finally, Jesus points out that the one is God. The most obvious inference from this discussion is that Jesus was calling himself the one who is good - God.
A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.Luke 18:18-19.
What also is interesting is that this idea of good is one that Jesus seems to be holding alone. Did the rich man think "good" was calling someone god? I doubt it. So the rich man and Jesus have two different understandings of good. Or do you think the rich man thought Jesus was God and therefore called him good?
There is no reason for Jesus to make this precise definition unless it was to contrast what the man thought good was next to what Jesus thought good was. The rich man thought good was just about "not breaking the law", or keeping up appearances. Jesus drills down into that idea and says good is not about keeping the law but by putting your loyalty to God above everything else. In this particular example he touched the man's most valuable idol - money. Give your money to the poor - and then come follow me. Most people read this verse and concentrate on the giving up money as though that it the only part - but the second part - "come follow me" is just as important. Jesus is saying - I, the good God are more valuable than all the riches in the world.
There is also a secondary picture going on as well. It is that Jesus is the only one in this this world who NEVER sinned. And the reason this is true is because he is God. The entire point of his life was to die as the perfect lamb of God. One who is perfect or indeed in this sense good. The good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep.
And the story of the rich man is a story of salvation, isn't? v.26 are bewildered because they took the view that wealth was a sign of God's blessing and favor. Jesus had just finished explaining that salvation was impossible for ANYONE. but v.27 he then says but what is impossible for man is POSSIBLE for God. It is impossible for man to be good - but for God all things are possible. Another inference to his own deity. v. 29-30 Jesus then follows up with the main principle here that he was expressing to the rich man - loyalty to God over and above all other idols is what the concept of good is all about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
It depends how you interpret the term "coming"?
The Lord comes - or is coming is an OT reference to judgment. Not necessarily to a literal appearance or return.
Many passages in the OT and the NT refer to the Lord's coming - in judgment and there are many other passages that refer to the return of the Lord Jesus.
The two are not necessarily the same thing. And when the two are conflated - then things get messy.
The same as when people talk of the last days or the latter days or the last Day.
What particular day are they are talking of - in relation to what particular event or covenant?
I suggest that Jesus' judgment - his coming occurred in AD 70 - at the destruction of Jerusalem. But I would not relate that to his second coming - which is talking about his return to collect his bride.
The covenant between Israel and God - came to an end definitely at AD 70. It started to end at Jesus' death. Between Jesus' death and the destruction of Jerusalem is approximately 40 years - one generation. This is what Jesus referred to in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 22. Jesus came - in judgment at Jerusalem within that generation - just as he predicted.
It was not a literal coming - it was a judgment coming - and is similar to nature to every time the Lord came in the OT with many judgments over many nations including Israel.
I think his second return however will not occur yet. I think he is going to return to collect his bride. The church. When she is fully grown up and mature - and ready to be a wife. At the moment the church acts like a petulant child or teenager. She doesn't know whether she is Arthur or Martha. She is all over the place - like a scatty teenager in puberty. Not yet ready to meet her Lord and Husband.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The bible does not talk about the Samaritan being good. So the answer is the bible does not talk about good in that context.Stop it! I am speaking only of the word "good" as used in both these biblical parables. The bible clearly speaks of that act of doing "good" as in the Samarian doing good to a complete stranger. The parable doesn't say the Samaritan was good . I am asking you was his actions towards the stranger "good"? Yes or no?
Stephen, you - not me - asked a question. How am I supposed to know what you are asking when you are being deliberately vague? The bible never refers to the Samaritan as being good. Jesus' parable was in relation to what? To who is my neighbor? Not to who is good? Was the Samaritan good? I would say - he did a kind and a merciful act. Does this make him good? IDK. His actions were good in my view from a human secular point of view. But the bible is not talking about good or bad here is it? It is asking the question - who is my neighbor?
If you are asking me whether his actions are good? I would say they reflect goodness. But so would you - even though you said above you did not have an answer. So don't be a jerk. Stop telling lies and respond accordingly.
In relation to the shepherd in those verses - good is being referred to as "not the wrong one.The "good" shepherd is simply a story of not wasting ones time with those that are already believers/ followers . But to search out and make a believer of the one that doesn't believe , i.e the lost sheep. In other words don't waste your time preaching to the converted.Both are examples of " good" in the opinion of Jesus.Yet you are here asking "what is good" ? Or do you not agree with Jesus' standard of what "good" is?
I disagree. I have explained that above. It is not simply a story of "not wasting time." Wow, that actually reveals lots about you.
I never asked what Jesus or the bible or God thought was good. LLOL! I asked Deb-8-a-bull, what they thought good was. Don't you even read what others say? Of course not. My question did not imply I did not know what I thought good was. It was me asking Deb what she or he thought it meant. I often forget about you lack of comprehension skills. Wow!
I am not asking here what is Jesus' standard or good nor of God's nor of the bible's view. You are.
Jesus says no one is "good" , including himself yet Christians refer to the Samaritan as "good" and Jesus calls the shepherd "good" . This then is clearly a contradiction on his part or on the part of very forgetful and contradictory bible scribes.
Yes that is true. But not including himself. In fact I would suggest that he was in fact - pointing himself out as God. As many Christians do,. Your prejudice goes the other way - good for you.
So are you now going to tell us what the bible means when it uses the word "good"? Of course your'e not. Your question was a question born of pure ignorance. And a question that even you cannot answer .
Ah, no. My question was directed at asking Deb-8-a-bull what they thought it meant. You decided to change the direction of the thread. Not me.
Just because you lack comprehension skills as well as cognitive ability to understand - does not mean that others have to fall down the rabbit hole with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The bible does not talk about the Samaritan being good. So the answer is the bible does not talk about good in that context.
In relation to the shepherd in those verses - good is being referred to as "not the wrong one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And I simply asked you are the words in the bible"good". And you fell at the first fence .....as usual.What does the bible mean by "good" when it talks about the "good Samaritan"?And what does the bible mean by "good" when it speaks of the "good shepherd"?You see Reverend "Tradey" these are questions that you should be well versed in to answer and in a position to answer in your capacity as a Pastor and Chaplain to your countries defence forces, not to mention all those " university students that you lecture and tutor" about the "good book", but suddenly refused to. But then the bible that mentions the words "good" over 800 times is "just a book" to you,isn't it Reverend "Tradey"? That is until you get in front of your parishioners and you start preaching from the "good" book" and interpreting what you believe the bible means by "good".I'll say it again, you are a hypocrite, Reverend "Tradey" and a cowardly bible dunce to-boot!
The problem dear Stephen is this. You have a track record. I fully expect that since you are entirely jealous of me that you will follow your history and simply attack (whilst countering with "words, what words? Words can't hurt, can they?) at every opportunity.
If I actually thought you wanted to have a productive conversation I would join in with you. Yet, as soon as I do such as above - you try and turn it into something else.
honestly, you should just get a life. And to prove that I am right I will respond from now on - in relation to the pertinent parts of your post.
What does the bible mean by "good" when it talks about the "good Samaritan"?And what does the bible mean by "good" when it speaks of the "good shepherd"?
Firstly, the bible never talks about the "good Samaritan". The title is added by English translators - but not from the greek. So the Bible itself never talks about it. Of course you knew this didn't you?
Secondly, "good shepherd: is referred to three times in the bible. John 10:11 x 2 and then John 10:14.
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
I am the the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.
In all cases Jesus is referring to himself as the good shepherd. He is contrasting himself with the hired help. In the third usage he is also relating that his sheep know him.
The context from v.10 Jesus is clearly contrasting himself with those who are the hired help or the robbers. I would suggest this is a comparison between Jesus the owner of the sheep v the Pharisees, the hired help and current leaders of Israel. He will demonstrate his true status as owner by dying for his people. Whereas the leaders of the Jews would not do so.
"Good" in this particular sense seems to be the true as opposed to the false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Thanks Stephen, as always you are so delightful.
I think you do have an answer. Otherwise, there seems to be no particular reason why you are so against religion per se. Or at least some people's understanding of it. You obviously think you are correct and therefore good and everyone else no good.
But then again -I am sure you will explain why I am incorrect.
You have no clue as to why I declined. It was because I was hoping to explore what Deb-8-a-bull understood by good. It was never about my own views. But there you go - as often is the case - jumping to conclusions.
This question was about the meaning of good - not the words of the bible. You tried to make it about that - and I said - give us a definition. You then LIED and said you don't have an answer - yet then whilst hoping no one picks you up - throw my words at me - with the underlying assumption about the words of bible being good or not. It is not me who is the hypocrite nor the liar.
I never said the Bible had no meaning. That is your view. I said the bible does not cause people to do things. That was the context. If you had forgotten, the logic of your words and argument was that "the clothes females wear - like the words of the bible - cause them to be .... or to make other people do stuff." I said you are wrong. And I continue to stand by that statement. You are the one on the wrong side of the argument - and you are too proud to admit it. Your prob. Not mine.
The bible is a book with words. Words are words. How people read words - and interpret them - is a matter for them. How men see ladies clothes and respond is a matter for them. The clothes and the words are merely clothes and words. They don't cause anything per se. If they were the cause - then all people reading the words would be murderers or homophobes or believers in Jesus or sinless. And all men would be sexual assaulters or men of integrity.
How people respond to words or clothes is a matter for them. It is neither the words nor the clothes that CAUSE anyone to do anything. IT is how they respond according to their interpretation that is the point. You know this and I think you actually agree with me. But your pride - well that is what is getting in the road here. It is how you are choosing to respond that is the point. The question is - how are you going to respond to the truth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What's up Reverend "Tradey"? Too frightened to commit?My question is a fair question and you should be able to answer my question.I don't have an answer for your question.
What is there is to be frightened about? I certainly am not afraid. I also agree that yours is a fair question. In fact I am pretty sure I suggested it was a "great question".
And I appreciate your decision not to answer my question.
For me, I also decline to answer.
The question of "good" as Deb-8-a-bull appreciates is complex. There is a certain amount of subjectivity to it. And what one considers subjectively to be good, another person might see as bad or evil. Unless we have a working definition in consensus of what good is, then there is not a lot of point discussing any particular fact or hypothetical, is there?
Is it good to eat children or not? See? Unless we know what good is - then it makes no sense. Or unless we know the context?
You of course have a few years on me, so I expect you probably have a working definition. Why don't you try me out? Let's see if we can find a consensus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What is good You ask. Lots of stuff that i can't really rattle off.Good to goodist.Is that a word?And bad to badist.You know what i mean hey?There would have to be a line hey? Good things ranging to bad things.And Somtimes in certain situations some bad things turning good.and good turning bad.Who determines this.It is a good question and you want to answer it real quick with ( i do )I determine if something is good or bad.And as soon as you think this , it turns to the opposite.Everyone but i determines good or bad.Thennnnnnnnn if the act was committed by you toooooooo, did it involve me.And this is if the opposite of good is bad, not evil. I'm not sure what evil is.Sorry for my spelling in advance trade.To sum it up.Well i can't.
Thanks Deb-8-a-bull,
Thanks for your honesty. And not pretending to be otherwise.
Created: