Tradesecret

Immaterial. God, if it exists, is an idea and a concept.

Based upon the idea that GOD is essentially knowledge ,or if you like, ultimate knowledge....Rather than an entity.

I propose that GOD was previously achieved, and will again be achieved sometime in the future.

We, are somewhere betwixt GODS, and an essential part of the process of accumulating knowledge.

I also propose that  Alternative Intelligence will also play a part.

Mythical tales, supernatural beliefs and worship are perhaps an inevitable part of the human process, and so consequently also an essential part of the GOD process. Though the GOD that was and the GOD that we a striving towards would have no regard for such things.

yes. That is JUST your opinion. 

YEP! Correct. I said it was my opinion. Repeating me isn't going to get us far is it you clown. 

I do think people should do good for the sake of doing good.

Why ever not?  You just have to link good with faith don't you.

What a ridiculous statement to make and coming from a Pastor and a Chaplain too.

I can't for the life of me understand why you would agree with doing good for the sake of it being [the] right [thing to do]

That will be because you are thick,

 I am not the predator though.

Yes you are.  And you seem to have confused  the word "pray" with the word  prey. The Christian church has preyed on the weak and the frail. The illiterate, The down trodden and disenfranchised, the sick and the bereaved and the mourning with promises .  Its a habit that the priesthood will never shake off. It is your bread and butter. 

What is your measure of right and wrong? 

Cause no harm.

obviously not the normal understanding of Judea Christian ethics? 

Which are what? Keeping in mind that you have just said;  "I do think people should do good for the sake of doing good". ?

therefore will use Christian standards.

And there it is, linking faith with doing good.

And this is what fkn gets me about thick, dense holier than thou dickheads like you,. You cannot accept that a person like me can have morals and standards because I do not believe in a dead man rising to walk the earth again or have a faith. 

Who are you to claim the monopoly of what human standards are or should be simply because you have a faith. ?  

I don't think doing good gets us a ticket to heaven.

Well that is because you haven't read your bible 

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:14–17)

"Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?" (James 2:20)

“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Revelation 22:12)

You came to the conclusion that the statement of evening and morning constituting the day can be understood to say that " it is an inbuilt design by God to the Jewish people that resurrection is his plan for his people."

That’s a fanciful conclusion to draw – not that Judaism doesn’t have an idea of resurrection in it, but I haven’t heard any Jewish thinkers tying it to this construction of the day. The phraseology of evening and morning established the structure of a day which has practical implications in how we fulfil certain commandments. But it isn’t tied to resurrection.

Judaism DOES have an idea that sleep is a mini-version of death (the oral law speaks of sleep as “one sixtieth of death”) and this has additional implications in terms of ritual impurity and the morning’s need for hand washing.

It is perfectly fine for you to speak of Christianity’s seeing these and other biblical events as symbolic or allusions (“shadows” is often a word I hear used) but that’s not how they work in Judaism.

Hello Trade.

I assume that function requires matter.

So as real as thought can be.

I have always promoted the GOD principle.

In my opinion:

GOD is the product of the human computer.

Whether or not a thought  is tangible, I could not say..... Though one would assume that the process is....Neurons and synapses and all that.

So I doubt that a GOD is a floaty about bloke in the traditional sense.

Though it could be described as a floaty about thing in a neural sense.

Now Stephen, can you explain why you think anyone should do good things?  

It makes, or would make for a better world in my opinion. But that is only my opinion.

And you can't answer because ............

I will answer how I like. 

With that said;  sometimes people get taken for a ride and have their kindness taken for a weakness . You see there are always predators like yourself that are ready to exploit kind, charitable, generous and honest people. Pastors and Priests and Lawyers have been doing so for millennia. 

 And as I mentioned recently, to be  offering compensation for these things, rather than teaching that true morality only takes place when you want to do what you are doing, is educationally and developmentally debilitating.

Why should your subjective morality be expected of everyone else, including Jesus?  

Who said I expect everyone to feel and think the same as me. I gave only my opinion, that is all it is. You can either agree or not agree. 

So are you saying it is better to do good for a ticket to heaven or it is better to give and do good because you choose to give freely without expecting anything in return? Yes or no?

Luke 24:31. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.  (post resurrection body vanished in front of them.)

Luke 24:40 He showed them his hands and his feet.  (Post resurrection body walking around his huge gaping holes in it) 

John 20:19 With the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them. He showed them his hands and his side.. (post resurrection body walks through locked doors or walls. Post resurrection body walking around with gaping holes in his hands and his side. ) 

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "put your finger here see my hands reach out your hand and put it in my side. (Post resurrection body had a gaping hole in his side - the size of a man's hand.) 

Acts 1:9 After this he was taken up before their very eyes. (post resurrection body going up into the sky - cf Luke 24:51 - he was taken up into heaven) 

Each of these situations - describe what his post resurrection body was able to do. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6522/post-links/284288

I have said yes.

The sermon on the mount on the other hand does not teach that we should do good things simply because it is the right thing to do.

Do you think people should do good things simply because it is the right thing to do? 

Yes or No.

The answer is in your own question, you clown. And you call yourself a "lawyer"? 

There are few passages from John gospel only indicating that Jesus is god.

The other gospel  refer to him as being  only a "son of god"

 Also Jesus is clearly called   the "son of man". 

So who is making Jesus out to be a god?

Why are the other gospels silent on the matter of Jesus being a god?

And doesn't all of Christianity rest on this ambiguous claim.

Now show us this "clear difference". 

It seems that you need to be healed of your blindness.  

I have asked you to show this "very clear difference" . You have failed and still have  not done so. 

What do we know about resurrected bodies? Not a great deal.  This is true. Yet Jesus needed to eat after he was resurrected.  He was physical enough at times for people to touch him.  His body was pierced both by a sword and nails.   It may be well that his heart had collapsed by the spear as well.  Yet, he was alive and seen by hundreds of contemporaries.  And then interestingly enough,  he disappeared before their eyes in front of two disciples.  And then he was back at Jerusalem pretty quick.  All these things suggest that the resurrected body - as opposed to a non-resurrected body had powers that were different.  Not only that - he also ascended into the clouds.  I do not know how anyone reading these stories would deny the supernatural element.   I don't particularly care whether you believe the narratives. That is a completely different issue.   But the narratives themselves are pretty clear that Jesus in his resurrected body had the power to disappear in front of people's eyes.   https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6522/post-links/280614

Hence, Jesus needed to eat food. Yet Jesus was able to disappear before the disciple's very eyes.  And then to appear some 10 miles later within a few moments. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6522/post-links/281141

never said Jesus was resurrected as a spirit.  He was not a ghost.  He was resurrected in flesh and blood.  But his body was obviously different.  Yes, he ate.  But he also walked around - with gaping holes in  his side and in his hands.  That is not normal.   He walked through walls.  His appearance at times was cloaked.  For instance on the road to Emmaus. The two disciples did not recognise him. Either because they were in shock, grief, or because they did not recognise him in his resurrected body.  Not until they came to understand that the messiah had to die. And then they recognised him and IMMEDIATELY disapeared before their eyes.  

Normal bodies do not disapear.  

Why are you choosing to see that the evidence here in the narrative is that his pre-resurrected body was quite different to his post resurrected body? Not only that - his final appearance is of a person ascending into the clouds.     Normal bodies do not do this type of thing. We don't just float into the air.  

Yet Jesus had been dead - physically dead.  There is no other plausible explanation that fits the facts.   Then he was seen alive by over 500 people.  Again, according to the facts in the narrative.  And whether you believe the story is true or not - is really quite irrelevant. The narrative is clearly saying Jesus died and then rose again, physically.   It describes differences between his post and pre resurrection body. 

The post resurrection body was able to just walk through walls, and disappear and even float into the sky.  Yet Jesus own words, deny he was a ghost or a spirit.  But indeed was flesh and blood - and ate fish.  People could touch him - Thomas did.  Mary did.  I Imagine others did as well. Although that is speculation on my part. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6522/post-links/282734

DEBATEART COC: Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.

The reason is because - you, like every other person on this site is permitted to start your own religious thread. True you cannot direct it to me personally by putting my name on it.  Yet, you can ask a question.  You could ask the question about Noah's ark.  Or about children being punished for cursing their parents.  These are both legitimate questions to ask.  I would happily join in the conversation with you and others.  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6316/post-links/284033

The sermon on the mount on the other hand does not teach that we should do good things simply because it is the right thing to do.

The views are clearly caricatures and therefore strawman.

Really? You are aware that these are legitimate views monotheists have taken within philosophy, right? It seems to me like you have no actual understanding of philosophy beyond apologetics with how you are struggling here.

 Therefore I should be an atheist or a pantheist.

Either you are strawmanning the argument or you are just not grasping it. Do you not understand what prior probabilities are? Because it seems that is the case with what you are saying.

I never said I reject the Null Hypothesis.  I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.

Are you not aware that the Null Hypothesis when applied to the god claim has atheism as default? Do you not know what the Null Hypothesis is or are you ignorant on what a default position is?

You are not making sense.

I honestly don't know how much simpler I can make it without having you actually take a Philosophy 101 course at this point.

The Bible is an axiom and the Havamai is not.  Perhaps you need to learn about axioms.

I know what axioms are and it seems like you are misusing the term. If you have 'the Bible as an axiom' (whatever you are supposed to mean by that) then you may as well quit this site as debate becomes impossible with you. As such you must be using the term in an entirely different way than it is used in philosophy.

Where does the Havamal declare that it is the Words of Odin within the texts.

You know how when you pick up a book it has a title, right? If the title says that the book is the "Words of Odin" then why would it be necessary to make it clear within the text once more that it is, indeed, the words of Odin.

he would not make it difficult for people to figure this out.  It would not be secret.

You are presupposing the nature that god(s) must have.

Your book does not declare that God wrote it.

My book? I use many books and the one I have mentioned in this thread is explicitly the Words of Odin yet you keep pretending that it isn't. The fact that I outlined this clearly in my last comment and you basically decided to ignore what I said makes me convinced you are not an honest actor and thus I am only responding at this point as a courtesy.

reject it as God's word and as an axiom.

Again, you clearly have no idea what an axiom is in philosophy.

Atheism is more relative - post modern.   The Western Nations have traditionally been more modernistic in their position. Trappings of the Judea Christian heritage.  Yet Atheism as it becomes more dominant in society is heading philosophy and everything else towards non-absolutes.   We live in a non-binary age now.  Morality is as Morality does.  Everyone is their own god. Polytheism.  Not every god has to be superhuman.   Most are just ordinary people who believe they have the right to do whatever they want and to believe whatever they want. This is the essence of deity. 

It is due to this type of stuff that I am convinced that you haven't read anything in philosophy except apologetics. Combine that with your blatant dishonesty when it comes to the Havamal, even after I spelled it out, and it is clear you are not an honest actor. I made this reply as a last courtesy, but if you aren't actually going to be an honest actor then don't bother replying at this point. I get better engagement on these topics on websites that aren't debate focused.

“The God of the Bible is a very rational God - and his people are also rational. A religious experience all by itself is simply absurd - if there is not confirmation from independent sources.”

Relative to your quote above, tell the membership in how rational ... Jesus is, as Yahweh God incarnate, in the following examples, and again, NO RUNNING AWAY as usual, understood Bible fool, where you have already set a record in this forum for doing so!

1. Explain how “rational” it is for Jesus to cause abortions within the women of Ephram and to KILL these women’s babies if they were born as shown in the following link:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6316-the-meaning-of-death?page=5&post_number=113

2. Explain how “rational” Jesus is when he made his creation eat their children, and how rational the people were when they ate their children!

“And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.” (Jeremiah 19:9)

“Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.” (Ezekiel 5:10)

3. Tell us how Jesus as God is “rational” when He commands that innocent infants will be smashed to pieces, and wives ravished of the Medes. Question, when smashing babies like Jesus wants, do you think it sounds like a watermelon being thrown upon a large rock?  (Isaiah 13:15-18)

“I personally would never use religious experience to determine my theology.”

Then you do not understand - or mores likely the case - you have never read 1 Corinthians 2:14

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned". <<<< . 

You do know what that means don't you ...?

It means that for all of your pretence and personas, god here is obviously talking about the likes of you.

Yet you tell us that you had a calling!????

That you are accredited and qualified to preach the word of god? From whom do you claim this authority?

How did you receive this calling: obviously not through a religious experience, was it?  You simply don't know what a religious experience is  as you are unable to judge either way what one is. 

Did Ezekiel  have a religious experience when he is said to have witnessed the chariot of god descend from heaven? Yes or no?

And doesn't god himself say some will have "visions come the day of the lord". ? Yes or no?

What about Habakkuk ? Did he not have a religious experience  and told to write them down? Yes or no?

Did not Jacob experience a  religious experience?  Yes or now?

From what I can tell you hold a mix of the various monotheistic views presented, so I don't see how you are struggling here. As each of the three require fallacious reasoning to sustain themselves over the polytheistic interpretation it follows that mixing and matching does the same.

Perhaps you need to explain the difference between religious experience and experience within a religious context.

For the purpose of Greer's argument, a religious experience is an experience one has of a god. It is vaguely defined on purpose as there are a wide range of ways one can hold the experience.

I reject the assumption that atheism is the default position.

You reject the Null Hypothesis? Why?

 special pleading is not a reason to reject its truth

Again, it is about prior probabilities, not final ones. If one view requires a fallacy to support and the other doesn't then the one that doesn't is initially favored. Arguments can be provided to shift probabilities, but that goes beyond the purpose of the argument.

The Bible is an axiom. The Havamai is not.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Self validating means that the book declares it is the "Word of God"? Well, then I don't know why you are including the Havamal as one that isn't self-validating when it is explicitly the Words of Odin. Havamal means "Words of Havi", Havi means High One, and the High One is explicitly Odin. As such the name of the text is "Words of Odin". Also, Havamal, not Havamai.

I honestly have no idea how you come to the conclusion that it doesn't declare it is the word of a god when that is literally the name of the text itself.

I also think this standard you are giving is absurd. Why must a book declare it was written by god(s) to be valid? Because you find it "reasonable" that a god would do so? Who says that a holy book necessarily has to be written by god?

Have you ever come across the phrase "the one and the many"? Inclusiveness is a product of the One. It is therefore logically and consistently polytheistic. Hence, inclusiveness tends to be seen in cultures such as eastern nations - India, China, etc and interestingly in the Atheistic ones. Atheism is essentially a polytheistic religion.   The notion of NO GOD turns into everyone is a god. We are all masters of our destinies. No one - can tell us what to do. We are all little gods. 

This sounds, to me, like hogwash coming from a point of view that has no understanding on the philosophy of religion.

Why does God want to be worshipped?

I am worried about ... TRADESECRET.

As we know at this time, TRADESECRET will only answer a member with vain attempts to the topic at hand,

BUT, when TRADESECRET cannot answer a members question,

At this time, TRADESECRET is running away from many godly posts to them by me.

Which religion or denomination would you put this person at?  Definitely does not fall under any christian denomination that I am aware of. 

The various villagers represent different positions one can take on the religious experience of others.

Villager A takes the position that all religious experience of others is false (made up, hallucinations, etc.)

Villager B takes the position that they had an experience but that it isn't of Cat (god).

Villager C takes the position they they had an experience of Cat, and the differences is how they view Cat can be explained.

Villager D takes the position that there are no Cats.

Villager E takes the position that there are many Cats.

They aren't supposed to represent religions or denominations, they represent the positions one can take in regards to religious experience.

I would never use it as a basis or proving God exists

This isn't really relevant for the argument though. It does not matter if one person's religious experience cannot be used as evidence to another person, all that matters is if someone acknowledges that religious experience happens (and is real).

But really they only confirm that religious experience is not the determiner of God existence.

The argument isn't supposed to be a determiner, it sets a 'prior probability'. It is that polytheism is apriori more likely than monotheism. It is similar to the atheist's use of the Null Hypothesis. Until arguments for theism are given one should maintain atheism via Null Hypothesis, until arguments that there can only be one god are given one should maintain polytheism via Greer's argument.

I think you are mixing up religious experience with both reason and special revelation.

I do not see how, the section you quote is the section on people trying to justify their religious experience over others by using various arguments. Without reason it is special pleading to take their views, and most arguments that one can give can be argued to require special pleading as similar (or identical) arguments can exist for other religions.

Also, how is appealing to special revelation not require special pleading here? You can say that there is special revelation behind the Bible, what prevents me of saying the same about the Havamal?

Inclusivism is a product of polytheism anyway.  It is a polytheistic notion - not mono-theism. Not sure of your point.

How is it polytheistic?

TRADESECRET -  “I personally would never use religious experience to determine my theology.”

Why not ...? Whereas, esteemed Biblical characters did make Religious Experience the fact that ... Yahweh God incarnate, proved Himself in existing!  With your ... quote above, you ... [insult] the face of Moses, Jesus’ angel, and Abraham, just to name a few, in directly having Religious Experiences to determine their faith!!

1. Remember the Religious Experience of Moses when he came across a burning bush in the desert, and Jesus commanded him to return to Egypt to free his people? (Exodus: 3–4).

2. The Angel of Jesus promised Gideon through Religious Experience the divine deliverance from Israel’s enemy, the Midianites (Judges. 6:11–8:32), Get it Bible fool?

3. In Abraham’s old age, and despite his having no children, the Religious Experience of Jesus promising Abraham that he and his aged wife, Sarah, would have a son through whom Abraham would become the father of a great nation (Genesis 12 and 28). Understood?

4. Within Kings 1 and 2, “Jesus appears to kings and prophets” with numerous warnings and promises in a Religious Experience which they took literally, therefore proving that Jesus existed!

In the New Testament you forgot about one of many Religious Experiences, where in this case, relative to the birth announcements of John the Baptist: “Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.” (Luke 1: 11:13). Within this Religious Experience John was born, and therefore proving Jesus exists as Yahweh God incarnate! Understand Bible fool?

Intro

Greer’s Argument from the Diversity of Religious Experience

To understand the various monotheistic interpretations Greer used the following analogy (summarized).

A researcher visits a village with five houses to inquire the residents on their beliefs in feline(s). The researcher knocks on the first villager’s door (Villager A) and asks them about their views.

Villager A tells the researcher that of course they believe in the existence of the Cat. The Cat is a tabby and has blue eyes. I leave kibble out for the Cat and the Cat eats it, proving that the Cat is real. I even once experienced the Cat and it looked at me with its blue eyes and proceeded to eat the kibble. Some of the other villagers believe in different cats but they are wrong, the cats they believe in do not exist. They leave out other foods which are probably eaten by hobos.

The researcher then proceeds to go to the next house and asks Villager B about their beliefs. They proceed to tell the researcher that they believe in the existence of the Cat as well. The Cat has short, black hair and green eyes. They put a bowl of milk out for the Cat every day and it is eaten by the Cat. They also had a personal experience of the Cat, having even turned their life around and become sober after their experience. They also say that other villagers have different beliefs about the Cat but they are mistaken, they actually are simply experiencing and feeding rats that some mistake as being Cat. One day Cat will purge the village of these rats and we will see who gets scratched and/or bitten!

The researcher proceeds to the next house and asks Villager C about their beliefs. Villager C also professes belief in the Cat, who is a marmalade tom with orange eyes. Villager C, however, is much more tolerant of the other villager’s views on Cat. After all, they got some info correct, they also think that the Cat has 4 legs, tail, pointed ears, and whiskers. However, Villager C says that the reason they got some information wrong about Cat is because they likely saw the Cat in bad light condition or when the Cat had rolled around in dirt. They also had seen Cat, having seen it on the top of the fence dividing her property with her neighbor’s, thus they know that the Cat isn’t limited to just their property. They put out canned food for the Cat, believing that this is the proper way to feed it, but says it likely is eating the food left out by others as well, just that canned food is more proper.

The researcher proceeds to the next house to ask Villager D. Villager D scoffs when asked, saying that belief in the existence of Cat is nonsensical. They had never experienced Cat and believes that other villagers hadn’t either. What they experienced were hallucinations or misperceptions of non-feline phenomena, oftentimes due to an intense will to believe. They say that if you wish to see Cat badly enough that you will be convinced anything could be Cat. The disappearance of the various foods? Could be hobos or any number of explanations that don’t require the existence of Cat. Villager D also points at the contradictions of Cat. One cat cannot be a tabby, a short black haired, and a marmalade tom at the same time.

The researcher then proceeds to the final house to ask Villager E about their beliefs. Villager E laughs and informs the researcher that there have been three different cats in the village for years, one a tabby, one with short black hair, and one a marmalade tom. Each has its own territory they mostly respect and knows where and when to get the food they each prefer. All of them occasionally go to Villager E’s house as well as they have kibble, milk, and canned food for them. She laughs and says it is funny as she had recently spotted a blue burmese female recently and has had a litter of kittens. How the other villagers react when they see these she cannot imagine.

Each of these five villagers represents a different view one can take. Villagers A, B, and C are ‘mono-felists’. They believe in one Cat but have different views about other people’s experiences. Villager A thinks that none of the cats other people believe in exist at all (existence-exclusive). Villager B thinks that the other cats people believe in are real, just not cats (value-exclusive). Villager C thinks that there is one cat with many faces (inclusive). Villager D is an afelist, they don’t think cats exist at all. Villager E is a polyfelist and believes there are many cats.

Explanation of the Analogy and Monotheist Positions

From the analogy it should be easy to see that the monotheists(monofelists) require special pleading in order to justify the experience of others within their framework, but we can go into more detail here.

Let’s take two people, Jack and Jill. Jack believes in Odin while Jill believes in Yahweh.

If Jill is an existence-exclusive monotheist they hold the view that Odin does not exist and Yahweh does. How do they justify this view? Jill might appeal to the Bible as a sacred text, but Jack can respond that he has the Havamal, the Words of Odin. Jill might appeal to prayers, revelations, and religious experiences she or other believers in Yahweh have… but Jack could do the same with those that believe in Odin. Jill could claim to have experienced miracles, but so could Jack. Jill might appeal to prophets or heroes/martyrs of Christianity, but then Jack could once more do the same. The evidence that Jill can provide as to why Yahweh exists and not Odin also exists for other religions, thus special pleading is ultimately required to justify accepting Jill’s view over Jack’s.

This problem is not solved by Jill taking the view of the value-exclusive monotheist either. How can Jill give evidence that Yahweh is the only God and that Odin is something else? Through special pleading, as, just like above, the reasons Jill can give can be matched with reasons Jack can give.

Conclusion

I believe that the thesis has made it clear, religious diversity favors the polytheistic interpretation over the monotheistic one. The monotheistic interpretation requires special pleading and/or unfounded assumptions in order to justify the diversity of religious experience that occurs across the world and throughout time. As such, if religious experience is to be seen as valid then, until evidence/arguments are providedtruth.  for monotheism, polytheism is more likely to be true.

Now show us this "clear difference". 

TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and now unknown, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, and now is once again the #1 Bible Runaway fool,

Tradesecret as a male:

https://www.debate.org/Tradesecret/

Tradesecret as a female:

https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy

Tradesecret now as an unknown:

https://www.debateart.com/profiles/Tradesecret

TRADESECRET, you now say that you are once again a MALE, remember? Therefore, tell us, why haven’t you changed your “unknown” gender status in your profile page to being a “male?”  With all of your gender changes, are you still not sure in what gender you truly are “at this time,” again? LOL!!!!!

Seriously, as if your outright Bible stupidity isn’t embarrassing enough for you in front of the membership, and now being the #1 Bible runaway fool again, do you really want to add further embarrassment in not giving your gender “at this time” in your profile page which slaps Jesus in the face if you don't?  

This following link shows your gender as still “unknown” on August 11th, https://ibb.co/kSCVttw, and if you remember, I told you to change it to a “male” because you always do as I tell you to do to save further egg upon your face in front of the membership.

Jesus and I want to know, why haven’t you changed your gender AGAIN in His name so that you are not a continued LIAR? 

Well actually the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes in particular is not about how to get rewards at all.    

OPINION!  And it is about receiving the reward of heaven, in heaven and on earth, you clown. You just don't know your bible.

Matthew 5:12 "Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you".

Luke 6:23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

And on and on and on it goes. In fact reward is mentioned over 70 times in the bible. So away with your cretinous assertions.  

It is not a prescription for people do - it is a description of what people already are and already have.  

OPINION! And nope. It is about doing and or becoming with the offer of reward if you do or become. You just don't know your bible.

And it fly's in the face of many other things  that Jesus is supposed to have also said concerning what is on offer.  You just don't know your bible.

And you have missed the point of this thread. The thread concerns freely offering for nothing in return. The sermon on the mount does not do this, it offers reward/s.

The difference being  then? Show us the clear difference. There was no "clear difference"  at all if we are to believe what JESUS HIMSELF said, is there? 

Jesus said "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Luke 24:39 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=+Luke+24%3A39&version=KJV

Hence not a single sign of "clear difference" according to Jesus himself.

So when you are ready, lets see these "clear differences"?  

The fact is, that we interpret accordingly.

And the bible is and always was open to interpretation.

We cannot even prove if the sermon on the mount was delivered by anything other than a man, or if at all.

Though charismatic people and their ideology, have always been able to delude the gullible.

The bible states it as it is you utter clown and it is nice to see that you have dusted off  your Ethang persona and allowed him to return. How long for this time  Reverend "Tradey"?

Job was a faithful man of God.  Absolutely.  God did not torture.  God did not kill his family.  In fact Satan did that. 

And all sanctioned by the grace of  his own god. 

Keep wriggling Reverend "Tradey".  Anyone can read for themselves this sad story of how a good and faithful servant of god named Job was mentally tortured by  HIS GOD at the cost of the murder of TEN of his beloved children!  And all over nothing more than a wager .HERE>>>.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&version=NIV

Disagree all you like. But god sanctioned the murder of Jobs  TEN! children and all over a wager to massage his own fkn ego. And this proves how cheap human life is to this egotistical megalomaniac god of yours.

I disagree

I know you do, this is because you have never read your bible for yourself ,  and by your own admission, simply "pass on" #20 what you have been told to pass on..... without question or study of your own.. Those universities should take you to court and claim that you practiced and took money from them under false pretences. I know I would.

The rest of your post is nothing more than you attempting to justify the unjustifiable, to excuse the inexcusable and defend the indefensible and I wouldn't expect anything less from a two bit  jumped up holy roller such as you.

Anyone can read for themselves this sad story of how a good and faithful servant of god named Job was mentally tortured by  HIS GOD at the cost of the murder of TEN of his beloved children!  And all over nothing more than a wager .HERE>>>.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&version=NIV

"Is there a punishment for the sin of "misleading" Jesus' flock,? 

Yet then you say - "at the drop of a hat".   I disagree. In fact Stephen, it would be nice to see you prove that.  

Disagree all you wish.

  But the story of Job alone proves the point. And   how do you want me to prove it?  By "Picking & choosing"  those verses that contradict you? Or have you already forgotten this accusation?

When you use the expression ‘At the Drop of a Hat’ you mean that something is

happening instantly, without any delay. At the Drop of a Hat | Phrase Definition, Origin & Examples (gingersoftware.com)

Tradesecrete wrote: "As always you pick and choose what you want from the Bible". WTF!

Then there is the genocide of the whole planet  saving only a few people. Then there are the cities he completely wiped out along with Sodom and Gomorrah . This is before we start on ooooooooooo lets see ; the genocide ordered  in 1 Samuel 15:3;

"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Numbers 31

 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Notice above there he includes female children among the spoils of his war for his chosen people to take as slaves to rape /ravish.

Psalm 137: 9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones  and dashes them against the rock!

Isaiah 13:16 Their infants will be dashed in pieces  before their eyes; their houses will be plundered    and their wives ravished.

Ezekiel 9:6 Kill old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one on whom is the mark. And begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the house.

Then there is the innocent first born of Egypt. And on and on and on he goes, killing anyone that doesn't agree with him.

YOU have to justify all these wanton murders Reverend, NOT ME!  AND THE POINT IS  that god in those cases will and does kill anyone that simply isn't one of his own FACT!  And in other cases he does kill his own.. life is cheap to your god . Just like the god of Islam.   At least Islam gives you the choice to convert .

And "at the drop of an hat" is the only way to describe a vile god that will torture and kill for nothing less than a wager with his arch enemy Satan.

See the Story of Job below.

Exodus 20 :4-5 I am a jealous God punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.  but showing mercy to a 1000 generations of those who love me and obey my commands. "

Punishing for the sin of their fathers, not sins of their own..  You really need to read the shite you have been teaching your students and charging their Universities for before claiming what it is that you believe to be true or untrue.

Where does it say God will torture and kill those who do obey every one of his commandments? 

So now you are actually AGAIN asking me to choose verses that contradict your own beliefs and claims? WTF!!  SEE ABOVE

And it is  - does -  torture and kill . We have been here before  but again, see the sad story of Job as a good example. Read it, it only takes a few minutes.

I believe he is in the midst of shedding his old title at the moment Brother, he doesn't seem to know what he is (or who he is) of late.#53

Maybe a few more weeks sick leave will do the trick. I too am waiting for his response to my post above#33  , but I won't be holding my breath.

Meanwhile, the Doc is awol and appears to be avoiding clearing up the matter of those " out of context" allegations he made against me>>#29

The Biblical Yahweh is not an All-Loving god

Correct . He is a self confesses" jealous god of war" and destruction that will kill anyone that doesn't do as they are told with him at the drop of an hat.  He will even torture and kill those that  DO follow all of his commandments too.

And because I had you down as a liar from day one. And lets not forget eh, that this "PERSONAL" information was freely given BY YOU in many posts to this  forum on the WWW!