Total posts: 3,520
-->
@MonkeyKing
Thanks for the warning - but I don't necessarily have positive or negative connotations with the word cult.
I do however insist that both the JW and the LDS fall outside of the traditional understanding of Christian doctrine and churches.
They both might be labeled Christian by those outside the church - but the church has a long history of seeing them as outside of it.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Not once did you actually address the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I gave a plausible explanation.
I said that the resurrected body enabled him to do this.
I suggested that there is clearly a difference between a resurrected body and a non-resurrected one.
Resurrected bodies are still flesh and body. They are not spirit. And yet, they are more than a non-resurrected one.
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.
What is the alternative plausible idea Stephen? That is what you need to produce.
Created:
Why is it that the Jewish calendar amongst all of the calendars in the history of humanity has the day set out like "it was evening and it was morning and this was the 6th day? Jewish Time (simpletoremember.com)
What is so significant about this way of putting the way the day looks that is obviously more than just poetry?
It is because it is an inbuilt design by God to the Jewish people that resurrection is his plan for his people.
In the evening we go to sleep, in other words we die, and then in the morning we rise, we are resurrected.
Now we may be able to suggest this is true of the rest of the world's calendars, after all we go to sleep and then in the morning rise.
Yet, the significance in symbolism is profound. In the Biblical picture - resurrection takes place during the daytime. Not just in the morning. But at the high point of the day.
For the Greek - resurrection comes after the day is finished. Hence, do we have life after we have finished living. For the Jew, it was injected into their belief system from the time they came about that - life or resurrection with God - begins in the daytime - while they were still living and breathing and before the day was finished.
Abraham believed in the resurrection - this is why he trusted God with his Son. Jesus believed in the resurrection this is why he trusted his Father with his Son.
Our Sleep patterns are a picture of resurrection. An inbuilt one.
The pictures are all the way through the OT. Joseph was thrown into the pit - to die - and he was brought out resurrected. Daniel was thrown into the pit of lions to die - but he was resurrected. The three men were thrown into the fire to die - but they came out resurrected. There are many other examples of this picture of resurrection in the OT. This of course was God putting into the hearts and minds of his people about the reality of the resurrection of which Jesus the Son of God would be the first fruits of.
Another interesting side point - the two Jewish religious groups mentioned in the NT, the Pharisees and the Sadducees - were often pitted against each other. They both had polar opposite positions in relation to the resurrection. The Pharisees, believed in the resurrection and the Sadducees did not. And interestingly, this point was one which brought them both together and also caused them division.
The Resurrection of Jesus was effectively prophesied from when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, it was continuously brought to the Jewish people's attention throughout its history - but not just because of Jesus - who would the highpoint of Resurrection - but then all who sleep in Christ would rise and be resurrected with him on the last day.
Another wonderful little point - at the time Jesus died - Matthew records - many in the graves were brought up from the dead and were seen walking about the city. The point being that Jesus' death was the door by which people are resurrected.
The evening and the morning - a picture - a delightful picture - injected into the psyche of the Jews, but also the rest of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
How did Jesus walk through walls in his resurrected body?What a great question? Why don't you produce a resurrected body for us to consider the question?Oh wait - you can't.Here is another question for you? Did Jesus ever walk through a wall in his non-resurrected body?I suppose you think he had secret tunnels or perhaps he was a ghost or perhaps people were hallucinating or perhaps he was someone else and slipped in besides everyone. LOL!. The answers you have to resort to when you have to deny the supernatural. But hey that is your bug to bear.Thankfully, not all of us have to be constricted by definitions that give us no wriggle room.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.And this is not to forget that Jesus a dead man - rose from the dead. It matters not whether you believe the stories Stephen, but to deny what the narratives are saying is just plain dishonest. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6522/post-links/280614
Are you going to address this post or are you going to report me again? Why are you so opposed to considering what the narratives ACTUALLY say as opposed to whitewashing them from your "non-supernatural" liberal position? Let the bible speak for itself - well except when it disagrees with Stephen's prejudiced narrative.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
God cannot make a rock so big he can't lift it.Then he's not all powerful because he cannot create such a stone.
With respect, you are mixing up power with logic. The purpose of your original statement is intentionally a self-contradiction. You would need to demonstrate that all powerful means to do the impossible - where the definition of impossible means something other than impossible. Obviously that is illogical. It makes no sense. The God of the Bible does not do impossible things. Everything God does is possible. The logic of this is - if it is done, then it is possible.
Now this does not mean that everything God does is also possible for humans. Just like everything birds do - like fly is possible for humans. Our nature as humans prevent us from doing whatever birds do - such as fly. SO is it impossible to fly for a human? Yes, unless we build a machine. But we discovered that flying is possible. Just not possible as a human relying entirely on ourselves without a machine. Or some kind of instrument like special clothing or such.
God does not will to do themThis is irrelevant. The question is, "Can God do it?"
On the contrary it is VERY relevant. The only way it would be relevant is if you first prove that God is NOT holy and God is not omniscient. To isolate any of God's attributes from whom God is - a strawman argument. God is not isolated bits of character. He is WHOLE.
Created:
-->
@Bones
God cannot make a rock so big he can't lift it. Nor can God make a square a circle. He can't do these things - not because he not powerful - but because they are illogical conundrums that don't make sense.So God is bound within logic i.e, he cannot do that which is not logical? Then who created logic? Surely the creator of logic can escape logic.
Bones, great question. God is not so much bound to logic as he is to his own character. Jesus is the LOGIC of God. In the beginning was the word (Logos) and the word (logos) was with God and the word (logos) was God.
And when we talk about being bound by his own character - we are not talking as though he is somehow tied in knots by being good and holy. But rather that is exactly who he is and what he wants to be. In other words, the use of the term bind - is for human benefit as opposed to an actually restriction on God. God has no desire not to be good. Whatever he wants or wills to do - he does. But since he only ever seeks good and reasonable things - then he is entirely free to do whatever he wants. This is in contrast to someone - say a human - who wants to do absurd things. Or even illogical things. The human in any of these situations - suddenly finds that they are bound by their nature. Despite the fact that we want to do an absurd thing or even an illogical thing - does not mean we can do it.
God's nature if I can put it that way is that there is NOTHING he cannot do - that he wants to do. And since he is totally and flawlessly logical and reasonable - then he would never want to do something that is opposed to these things. SO if he can do anything he wills to do - you know - like creating entire universes as a drop of a hat or a word, or if he can do a miracle here and there, or raise someone from the dead, or something like that - then obviously his power is exponentially greater than anything we can do. So to say God cannot lie - is to say - God always wants to tell the truth and he does that. Imagine if a human did that? That would make them incredibly powerful. God cannot sin is to say that God always does what right in accordance with his own measures of rightness. To say God cannot make a rock so big is simply to say God is not illogical or absurd but rather perfectly reasonable and logical. That is his nature. IT is his character. Logic therefore was not created - it has existed always - since it is part of the nature of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I don't have to admit or deny anything in this context. you have shown historically that you like to gather information about people's personal lives in order to troll them and bully them.
I just hope that you don't collect people's information in order to commit criminal offences. Perhaps you are not white like you claim but a Nigerian. Perhaps you are Harikrish as well as Brother.
This might well provide lots of interesting material for anyone who ever investigates anything. Remember it is you who gathers information about me and then posts it back.
And it also seems that Brother does it - and so does Harikrish and also interestingly enough your other alto ego - dimtim.
I don't gather stuff about people. I have only posted stuff about you - that someone else sent to me by email or pm. And if a moderator ever did check my pms then they would see I received it from someone. As I have said - I have nothing to hide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You do realise Stephen that no one is fooled by your tomfoolery.
I think there is a significant difference between a pre-resurrected person and a resurrected person. In the case of Jesus it also has to do with the difference between mortality and immortality. Now there is another delightful question to think about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
How did Jesus walk through walls in his resurrected body?
What a great question? Why don't you produce a resurrected body for us to consider the question?
Oh wait - you can't.
Here is another question for you? Did Jesus ever walk through a wall in his non-resurrected body?
I suppose you think he had secret tunnels or perhaps he was a ghost or perhaps people were hallucinating or perhaps he was someone else and slipped in besides everyone. LOL!. The answers you have to resort to when you have to deny the supernatural. But hey that is your bug to bear.
Thankfully, not all of us have to be constricted by definitions that give us no wriggle room.
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.
And this is not to forget that Jesus a dead man - rose from the dead. It matters not whether you believe the stories Stephen, but to deny what the narratives are saying is just plain dishonest.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Hi TheUnderdog,
Omnipotence in the Christian religion - others can speak for themselves, is the idea that God can do whatever he wills to do.
In other words, anything God wants to do - he can do. This means he can created a world with words. He can create life. He can end life.
He can make himself become human. He can make invisible things become visible.
Yet your suggestion that if God cannot do absurd things then he is cannot do all things and therefore is not omnipotent is only a valid argument if it is what people who believe God is omnipotent mean by that statement. You see, I don't agree with your definition. My definition of omnipotence is as above. Therefore - for me your argument is a strawman argument.
God cannot make a rock so big he can't lift it. Nor can God make a square a circle. He can't do these things - not because he not powerful - but because they are illogical conundrums that don't make sense. And also - God does not will to do them - so he OBVIOUSLY cannot be said not to do them. It would only be sort of sensible if God wanted to do these absurd things and then found he could not do them. Yet there is NO evidence whatsoever that he wants to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Will you please get back to the question? Or is that just too difficult for someone of your ability?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That is a fair point. Thanks for answering the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
How did Jesus enter a locked room?
what a great question. Stevie Blunder, how did Jesus do that without being supernatural? I am sure you have it all figured out. Why don't you enlighten the rest of us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Tradesecrete wrote: "But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications." #20Are you simply NOW denying that you, a church minister, is not ordained? And are simply claiming now to be nothing more than lay pastor and preacher?Pull the ground over yourself Reverend, you really fkd up on this one haven't you.For one that ministers to his countries defence forces as you say could not do so " without proper qualifications. and accreditations" #20 which includes being fkn ordained , you clown.Your'e just a compulsive lair, and caught in your own trap. This will be all to do with your own lack of research before opening that big black vile hole of yours.My, I really have invoked and resurrected the Ethang 5 in you haven't ? 😂
So I guess that is a NO!. No Mr Tradesecret I cannot find anywhere where you said you were an ordained minister. I am so sorry I made such a huge mistake and error and I ASSUMED all of these things about you.
Having proper accreditation and qualifications DOES NOT mean ordination. It might mean that but it does not need to mean it. You assume to much squire. And yet you over and over and over again called me reverend. I told you - that you were wrong at the time. but that did not stop you. You arrogant piece of pompous sausage.
Again I am not denying or confirming anything. But you - LOL! say much - and prove NOTHING.
Again dear Stevie Blunder, I am not Ethang. Please talk to the moderators if you don't believe me. but you Brother - and you DimTim, why are you so quiet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
radesecrete wrote: "But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications." #20Are you simply NOW denying that you, a church minister, is not ordained? And are simply claiming now to be nothing more than lay pastor and preacher?When you are ready, Reverend Ethang.
Stevie Blunder, just answer the question. OR CAN"T YOU????????
You are hopeless. A fraud. Where did I ever say I was an ordained minister? You have been going on and on and on about this - and NOW you can't even find it. Why not? Because you JUST MADE IT UP.
You have no idea. LOLL!
You should just pack it in and QUIT. You and the Brother and Dimtim. FRAUD ! FRAUD ! FRAUD ! The unholy Trinity. Why is it that Brother and Dimtim are so silent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I can't comment for fauxlaw. He can speak for himself. But I certainly agree that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
it might be safe to assume me and Trade only disagree about who is saved, and who God shows unconditional love to. we probably agree that full love is communion, and it's not possible to commune with evil. it's possible to love the sinner and hate the sin, even if you dont commune with them.
Cool post. not sure what it means - but cool post.
i dont think the bible even says all unbelievers are damned though. it only says rejecting jesus means damnation, and to me that means a full sense enough to reject the truth. emphasis 'rejecting' jesus. not the folks on an island. and to my understanding, not the people who dont know any better. a sin is willful engagment of wrongdoing, period. even that popular John verse that says God loves the world, says the reason some folks are condemned is because they reject the light. they reject the truth. even if i'm wrong and everyone who rejects jesus is damned, at the very least they have to know of him and reject him. that's very explicit in all the specific verses of who gets damned.
Wow! Which unbelievers would want to go to be with God? that is a very good question.
n8nrgmi, What do you think it means - to reject Jesus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It puzzles me your NEED to repeat these things.It puzzles me as to why you keep up the charade. I have said that I will post you bullshite when and where I feel it appropriate.They are all your own claims , not mine, Reverend"Tradey"
And Stevie Blunder,
what pray tell is the charade that you speak of? Stop making vague accusations and come out with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are simply backpedaling here Reverend. You have claimed to be a chaplain that ministers to your countries defence forces.
Sorry old chap. I am not backpedaling. You just ASSUMED many things. Duh! Being a chaplain does not require ordination. (or does it?)
You have attempted this backpedalling shite before by claiming one one hand that you are a "Pastor" and a "Chaplain" while on the other denying that you are a "Reverend"until I pointed out to you that "Reverend" is YOUR title and you persisted in this bullishit until I proved it to you.
Being a pastor in a church does not require ordination. (or does it?) I don't have to deny or affirm. I am simply asking you - where have I ever said I was ordained?
So lets try this one more time, just so I have this right in front of the whole of this forum:Are you now denying that you are a ordained minister of the faith?
Dear Stevie Blunder, it is your assertion. It is not mine to deny or affirm. Please show where I have ever said that I was an ordained minister of faith.
I know you won't find it. I never said it. But you - wait - wait - wait - ASSUME and PRESUME. Oh such a rock solid researcher. LOL!
until I proved it to you.
No. You only proved it to you. I never EVER agreed or conceded the point. LOL! I just gave you up as a hopeless idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
how would you justify disagreeing with an atheist if he said God is more hateful than loving?
I think Atheists do think that. And why wouldn't they? God is not happy with Atheists. And they are on a way ticket to a place that is not very pleasant. But it is their choice. They choose not to believe in God. And they choose to hate this God they don't believe in. And they choose to accept by direct implication whatever consequences fall their way. I don't have any sympathy for them. (Don't misunderstand that point. I am not saying I don't have sympathy for non-Christians. I am saying I don't have any sympathy for the person who chooses to reject God - specifically in respect to that rejection. I can have sympathy for them on many other levels)
Of course I would also add that God still extends grace to the Atheist. He gives them life. He makes it rain. He provides food for them. And none of this do they deserve. Mind you, neither do I.
do you agree that the God of the bible is conditional love?
That is a great question. I think that the whole idea of conditional v unconditional love is overdone. I as a parent love my children. And for the most part it is unconditional. Yet this does not mean that there might not come a point when I stop loving them. Yet, even that does not mean I would stop caring for them. If any of my children decided to kill my wife or their siblings or their own spouse or children, then I might find it very difficult to maintain a decent attitude towards them. If they became a pedophile, I might find it difficult to know how to love them. I certainly would not love their actions and I would accept that they need to be punished and stopped in their tracks. Would I stop caring for them? If they burnt my house down or told me they hated me - would I simply let it go? Probably not. I don't have an issue with disinheriting my children. But would I stop caring for them? Probably not. I can't make my children do the right thing. And the question is - if I could make them, would I? After all, it I made them, then it does not change them - it only means they are obedient - it does not change their heart.
do you agree with my presumption that you are disregarding 90% of christians when you say christians have your concept of God as very conditional about his love? i realize the road to perdition is wide, but i dont think it's safe to assume the majority of chrisitanity gets it wrong and only your and your ilk have it right. most christians think God loves everyone and it's common for them to think God loves everyone unconditionally. the fact that the bible depicts something else doesn't mean most christians are wrong, it just means that you have made an idol of the bible. the spirit guides christians, yet you disagree with a large majority of them, which might be fair to say you disagree with the consensus. most folks are wishy washy though, so it's hard to say exactly what the consensus is, granted, but i think i'm more right about this than you.
No. I don't agree with you. 100% of Christians know that they are saved by grace. This means they understand that they don't deserve God's love. They would never even really consider that God's love towards them is either conditional or unconditional. God could love everyone - but this does not mean that he would ignore their sin. Or that he would not send them to Hell. God is not only love but he is holy. And he is just. One thing he is not - is a liar. Many Christians would like to think that God is a liar - and that he does not mean what he says when he talks about Hell. If you had a child and that child grew into an adult and start molesting young children, would your love towards that child remain unconditional to the point that you would put your child above everyone else? Or would your love compel you to do something about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So did you find the place I said I was ordained?Ok. Lets get this correct, are you now denying that you are not an ordained minister of the faith?
Can you find anywhere where I said I was?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
It still is a strawman argument.
That you have not countered.
And even in the first link I looked at - it describes the term quite differently to the way you do.
If the term means God is good. And totally good. Then that is correct. That is quite different to saying he is all loving.
What makes something good? Is it your human understanding of good - or what God calls good?
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I think EVERY analogy used to describe the Trinity breaks down. I tend not to use them unless I am demonstrating various points about the doctrine. I think analogies as a whole ought to be used sparingly and we should never try to take them further than the actual intent.
The Trinity is a difficult doctrine to understand in many ways and quite simple in other ways.
The primary position is that there is ONE GOD. Yet God is three persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
As you put it above in one of your posts - each person is God and yet each person is NOT the other.
The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Holy Spirit.
A = DB = DC = DA =/= B =/= C
I think this is unhelpful way of trying to understand the Trinity. The logic of God is true - yet - you are coming at it from a Western Point of view. You are using what Edward De Bono would call Rock logic. And getting caught into absolutes.
The Biblical understanding of logic is based in Middle Easter Logic. Individualism is not the norm and neither is the corporate - so it is also not the Eastern Point of view. De Bono would probably infer that is "water logic". Interestingly, I don't recall De Bono ever distinguishing a third kind. Yet not surprising, because despite his intriguing intelligence, he does seem to have missed covenantal thinking.
It is to do with the one and the many. How are we to understand - the rights of the individual v the rights of the Community as a whole? Who has the primary say? In the West, it has historically been the individual who has the priority. In Eastern nations, it has primarily been the Corporate. It is little wonder that the West has tended towards capitalism based on individuality and the East has tended towards Socialism and Communism. I concede that Europe has often tended towards a mixture - probably closer to socialism. Yet, I suspect that has been a consequence of Napoleon's Code - and then the influence of the Soviet Union. And perhaps even to a degree - the movements of Islam into the areas.
Jewish Thought and to a lesser degree Christianity - has been covenantally based. This means it does not hold the individual or the corporate as primary - but rather equally. It has tried to balance the position between the right to bear arms v the right for a community to feel safe. It has endeavored to favor the view that the means and the ends are both important. Utilitarian's - suggest the end justifies the means. The greater good for the greater amount of the people.
Yet, biblical ethics is not this way inclined - and primarily because it is based on its theological understanding of the Trinity. It is not just ONE God. It is not just a plurality of gods. It is Trinity. One GOD, Three persons.
No other theological position is able to properly provide a satisfactory balance of the one and the many. One tends towards absolutes and the other towards relativity. Take the JWs and the Mormons and the two cults of the Christian religion. JWs focus on ONE GOD. Mormons focus on many gods. They are simply the Christianized versions of every other religion in the world. Islam for instance. What is common with JW and Islam? Both are fixated on absolutes. They have no real ability to be flexible in their positions. Or take the Mormons and say, Hinduism, or dare I say it atheism. Very much flexible and relative in their points of view. Mormons don't believe in Hell. Hindus - take a relativistic point of morality and athiests. They often say they just believe in one god less than Christians - yet the underyling principle really is they believe every person is their own captain and master - a god without calling it so.
Covenant theology - requires absolutes and boundaries - but it also contains much flexibility and relativism within those boundaries. A good example is the Garden of Eden. The absolute was don't eat the fruit from the one tree. Yet eat from any of the others. A boundary - parameters. And yet freedom within those boundaries. the Trinity is the basis for this understanding.
Other biblical examples of these Western Contradictory positions.
Jesus is FULLY God and Jesus is FULLY Man. He is not half God and half Man. It would be interesting to see whether this idea exists anywhere in other mythology. Mostly such heroes - with a divine parent - are either half man and half god but I can't think of someone who is considered FULLY god and FULLY man.
The Bible is written by Man and yet it is divinely authored by God, the Holy Spirit. It is not dictated for man to write. It was divinely authored by God - and fully written by humans in all of their frailties and sinfulness.
The Church. It is divinely established by the Holy Spirit - indeed as the body of Christ. And yet it is made up of human sinful people.
The Cross. The world considers the cross foolish and yet it is the wisdom of God. Humanity only sees weakness. Yet is the power of God for salvation.
God is ONE - and Yet God is three.
If we use Western Logic we miss it. If we use Eastern Logic we miss it. Baptists tend to miss the household baptism in the NT. Why? Because they are individualistic in their understanding of the gospel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
IntroIt is common to see Christians ascribe the property of 'Omnibenevolence' to Yahweh. It gets taught by priests to their congregants, parents to their children, and even theologians to their audiences/students. It is nice to think that there is a powerful force out there that has an unconditional love for all things, including you, but the problem is that this just is not Biblical. This does not mean that a Christian cannot subscribe to the idea that Yahweh is all-loving, but that just means that they have to, on some level, reject the Biblical depiction of him.And I know, many people are probably getting ready with the common argument that 'god hates the sin and not the sinner', but I have to tell you that the Bible disagrees.
Surely, you recognize this as a strawman argument. It is very often non-Christians who ascribe this as a Christian position. The only Christians that ascribe this position - and I am not entirely sure they do it consistently are the liberals amongst us. I do not believe that I have ever suggested that God is all benevolent. If that was the case then Jesus would not have needed to die on a cross. And more than that - there would be no judgment in the Bible and furthermore, the entire notion of Hell would make no sense.
In relation to your "god hates the sin and not the sinner". Christians fully realise that God will thrown the sinner into Hell along with the sin. So again I am surprised you are going al out for this strawman argument.
Why the Biblical Yahweh is not 'Omnibenevolent'It isn't hard to see why the idea that Yahweh is all-loving is sometimes seen as Biblical, after all we have verse like John 3:16 and 1 John 4:8.
- John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
- 1 John 4:8 - "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
John 3:16 - tells us two things. God loves the world. (Mind you - the question of "world" here is not necessarily understood) but if you read the verse very closely - it tells us - that if you don't believe in Jesus - you PERISH.
the second verse- indicates a similar thing - if you don't know God, you don't know love. Interestingly, this verse indicates that you a pagan do not understand what love is - so from a Christian point of view - the very fact that you are trying to suggest God is not all loving is pretty ironic.
The problem is that using just these verses is very much cherry picking the Bible to get as good a look at who Yahweh is as possible. When we look at more scripture this idea of Yahweh being all-loving falls apart.
Funnily enough - I would never have used either of those verses to demonstrate an all loving God. But I don't believe in an omnibenovelent god.
John 3:16 is shown to not mean Yahweh is all-loving in John 15:18-19, so in this case we don't even need to go to a different book of the Bible.
- John 15:18-19 - "“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world*, but* I have chosen you out of the world*. That is why the world hates you."*
God so loves the world, but not everyone belongs to the world. In fact people can be 'chosen out' of the world. This is not all-loving, this is loving only those 'of the world' and not all are 'of the world.We also see in Proverbs that Yahweh's love is conditional, Yahweh loves those that love him:
- Proverbs 8:17 - "I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me."
I think it depends on what you mean by the word love. In the Greek there are at least 4 different definitions and meanings. But in the Hebrew the word love is attached to the covenant.
We even have verses where Yahweh explicitly hates people. It is not Yahweh 'hating the sin not the sinner' but explicitly hating the 'sinner'.
- Proverbs 6:16-19 - "These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren."
- Leviticus 26:27-30 - "'And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I also will walk contrary to you in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you secen times for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down you incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you."
- Hosea 9:15 - ""All their wickedness is in Gilgal, For there I hated them. Because of the ebil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more."
- Malachi 1:2-3 - "Says the Lord. "Yet Jacob I have loved; But Esau I have hated, and laid waste he mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.""
- Leviticus 20:23 - "And you shall not walk in the statues of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them."
- Romans 9:13 - "As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Easu I have hated.""
Of course there still is a question about 1 John 4:8. Even with all this evidence that Yahweh hates, that not all get Yahweh's love there is a verse that says that Yahweh is love. This is the greatest issue with the Biblical Yahweh is that not all verses are consistent, but I think that Biblically there is more reason to reject the idea that Yahweh is love than accept it. Not only all the verses already provided which shows not all get Yahweh's love and that some even get Yahweh's hate, but two other verses together explicitly contradict the idea that Yahweh is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:4 - "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud."
- Exodus 34:14 - "Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
As I said - you make a strawman and then you defeat it. You champion you.
Yahweh himself says he is a jealous god, and if we take the understanding of what love is from Paul then it is clear that if Yahweh is a jealous god that Yahweh cannot be love. Only one verse from one book of the Bible makes a clear case that Yahweh might be all-loving but so many books from across the Old and New Testaments show, in some cases quite explicitly, that Yahweh is not all-loving.The above verses don't aren't even all of them that show Yahweh isn't all-loving, but considering how the majority of the rest come from Psalms, a book that is meant to be more poetic and thus not necessarily accurate in portrayal, I decided to omit mention of them.
whatever.
ConclusionI think that it is quite conclusive, if you believe in the Biblical Yahweh then you do not believe in an all-loving god. It isn't enough to say Yahweh 'hates the sin' because it is explicit in places that Yahweh does sometimes hate the sinner. If you wish to believe in an all-loving Yahweh you must go outside of the Biblical portrayal, you must abandon, on some level, the Biblical texts. The question I have is how much of the Bible must one reject before what they believe is no longer Christianity?
Hip Hip Hooray. I do think it is necessary to understand that love and hate are not mutually exclusive concepts. We can love and hate people all of the time. We also use the terms love and hate in various ways. As they are used in the Bible. Nevertheless, I agree with you. The notion that God is all loving to all people and to demons and such is difficult to maintain. Yet, as I said above - Christians are not the ones who hold to this strawman concept of God. It is typically the athiest and non-Christian who use it and then break it down. within Christian circles - often it most likely you will find liberal christians who hold to this. they prefer to think god is all loving - not all powerful. Not all knowing. for them - God is love -and for them love is the most powerful force in the universe. They tend to take half of the bible as good - the part which paints God in a nice way. They tend not to talk about sin or evil. They tend not to talk about Jesus needing to die on a cross - unless it is as a martyr. They tend not to talk about Hell. Or that Jesus' death atoned for sin. Yet, it is debatable whether such Liberal Christians fall within the historical boundaries of Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So did you find the place I said I was ordained? Or will we just write that up as more speculation, lies and misinformation you put out?
I challenge in respect of finding any evidence whatsoever that I might be Ethang. You won't and you can't. But hey - whatever your little brain wants to do.
Not like you and Brother and dimtim. Now there is an unholy trinity of personalities. Frauds the lot of you. Brother is obviously a facade. You are a theist who does not believe in the supernatural. And dimtim - a nontheist. Whatever!!
Do you really think your little tricks get past the rest of us? I wonder sometimes if Willows was another one of your personas.
now, how about this for a thought? If I have never said I was ordained and at the same time I said I am not a reverend, I wonder what that might mean?
But you know what Stevie Blunder, you guess, you speculate, you make stuff up, and most of the time you are WRONG. This happens when people who are dumb think they are smart or intelligent. They presume - and they assume - and they end up making well - you fill in the words.
You have absolutely no idea, do you? How is your Secret Gospel of Fraud going?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hello Brother, I thought you had run away again.
But here you are - again exposing us all to the goings on in your brain.
I think I need to tell you right now that I am not interested in being your boyfriend. Stop please stop asking me. Please stop trying to seduce me with your kind and generous words. I am still trying to figure how and why you are so interested in me. I am a middle aged old man - so perhaps that it your thing? However, I am not attracted to middle age fat old men like you. No offence meant. I simply am not attracted to you.
I actually believe that I had asked you not to engage with me. I did it nicely and politely.
I will now ask you once once - please stop engaging with me. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6316/post-links/280114
Perhaps you just can't read. That might explain it I guess.
Unless you actually have anything to contribute - towards an actual thread - please stop trying to groom me. Grooming, Stalking, keeping pictures of me, chasing me all around this forum. Wow! I am flattered - but even you must be seeing a certain obsession. If you were to keep to the topic. Who knows? We might be friends. But given your history, I find that unlikely - and improbable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not only is it weird, it is deeply disturbing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And each explained within their contexts.
so what? And probably are just in responses to questions you (Stephen) asked or in response to a question someone else asked. So what?
I don't have anything to be ashamed about - I have nothing to hide.
It puzzles me your NEED to repeat these things.
Is this stalking? I reckon it probably comes pretty close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As I indicated at the time, I ought not have written thatIndeed Reverend "tradey". There is a lot you shouldn't have written, isn't there? a word cannot be unspoken, Reverend "Tradey"
And there is a lot you should not have written.
the above only demonstrates that I have a long way to go in my sanctification.Don't make me laugh Reverend bullsitter.
Not trying to make you laugh. But your response demonstrates you know nothing of Christianity.
You are an ordained and "accredited" minster of Christ, are you now trying to tell us that not a single one of those "academics, scholars, and priests and fathers of Church" that you claim to have been "tutored under", and not a single one of those that bestowed your "accreditations" on you didn't really see you for what you really are at the time of your ordination?
When did I say I was ordained? I am an open book to my colleagues. I have nothing to hide. Unlike you.
You are too stupid to be ANY of the things that you have tried to convince the members of this forum that you are. Your'e just simply a bare faced liar.
LOL! and the best part of your statement is no matter how stupid I am, you are still more stupid. And proven on many occasions. I don't tell lies. I might say things I regret. But lying is not one of them. I don't lie.
But since it appears your MO is to dig up dirt and throw it - I expect you will do so again and again.
Dirt? Is that what all of your alleged accreditations and qualifications are, dirt?
LOL! - oh the spin. We gotta love it.
I will "dig up" when the need arises
You do - what you feel you need to do. I do believe in free speech.
And referring to me as the Trinity, well, flattering, but incorrect.
I have one personality. And unless you have REAL proof, not speculation, then well- keep to the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Dr.Franklin
@BrotherDThomas
1. idk why he was female, the only guess is that it is a mistake.He should know if or not he has a pair of bollocks. You are in denial again Doc and you are again attempting to defend the indefensible.
Asked and answered on numerous occasions. You are the one playing dumb.
what is real bad about this is that you and stephen are nugding tradesecret to reveal personal information about himself.S/he offered his/her personal information to the forum. S/he wrote it where no one else could have. It was all on his/her own and freely given on forum on the WWW. I personally believe it is a male, but who knows? Any one of his/her personalities could be a she? Or a he?
Responding to a question about something and providing a background to it is not against the rules of this forum. Nor is it a reason to continually stalk someone one. Unlike you, I am not ashamed of who I am. I am a pastor, a lawyer, and a lecturer. What are you? A troll, a stalker, and a conspiracist who likes to badmouth people. I prefer me any day of the week. You are also a liar and a fraud. You don't know whether you are an atheist or a theist.
he has to confirm that he was male and even said he that he was a lawyer along with pastorYou asked for this ,DocAlong with being a lecturer that teaches the scripture at universities. " No, I don't charge students, I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them". #20.Along with being a Chaplain to his countries' defences; (Pick a country any country, s/he says s/he's Australian that them a New Zealander) "I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation". #20Along with telling us; I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. #20Along with telling us; " I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". #91Along with telling us; " I study the original languages, translate them to English, #25Along with his criminal lawyering that can take 100's of hours of a lawyers time reading briefs and just as many in the court room defending criminal criminals!Along with his anti abortion work; "I devote a significant amount of my resources in trying to prevent abortions from happening".#64The list is long and and so so varied. Tell me Doc, where ever does s/he find the time? <<<< ALL THIS on top of a his family life and running farm!
I love this Dr. Franklin, What do you think? I feel kind of special that Stephen has his own little resource full of all my goings on. Perhaps he might invite me to speak at his little secret club one day? Who knows?
3.what have you seriously contributed to the board?Speak for yourself, Doc. Is all you ever do and are known for is going into denial of biblical facts and sniping from the sidelines.
Great Question Dr Franklin. Did you notice how he did not deny it? Did you notice how he dodged the question and then attacked you? I agree with you. Stephen has contributed nothing to this board.
tradesecret actually writes coherent posts with good points while you shout.You asked for this too, Doc.Tell me, are these words of upstanding man of the cloth with all those credentials highlighted above?Tradesecrete wrote: Stupid man. Dumb as fuck. Just continue to repeat your ignorance. #161
Gee how unpredictable. Like the little man who only sees what he wants to see. Produce a large white flag with a little miniscule spot of red in one of the corners, and what does Stephen see? Just the blood spot, and he misses the rest. Thanks Dr. Franklin. I like your posts as well. And I have read some of your debates and I find them quite informative. Of course, please don't feel the need to defend me. Stephen lives in the proverbial poo. His fruits reveal who his master is.
What about this, Doc?. Do you consider these words to be from the lips of an upright charitable citizen and a man of the church with all those wonderfull attributes that I have highlighted above?? #94
Hey Doc, Please read my comments about that post at https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6165/post-links/271016. I offered an apology at the first instance. I recognized my fault and did something positive about it.
Tradesecret wrote: “Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess. She would be proud of us. I am not proud - but she would.” “They are quite nice. We meet lots of other persons who share our sexual deviancies - it is like going home. All of our brothers are there - and dads and uncles.”WELL!!?
Yes, Doc, please go and look at that post as well. And look at all of the comments around it. It has been well and truly explained. And if you have any further questions please feel free to pm me.
tradesecret actually writes coherent postsMaybe when he is preaching and philosophising about god in a attempt to use this RELIGION forum as his pulpit. He becomes immediately unwound and unravelled the second he is challenged on the scriptures that he claims to know and teach to others. It is then that he takes on any one of the personalities that he has invented. S/he's a fkn charlatan and you know it!
Duh! Do you mean like all of the times you have been proven to be a liar. And all of the times you have run away. I would produce them - and will if asked, but I don't want to turn into another little Stephen, Brother, or dimtim.
And you know the wo/man is a compulsive liar.he confirmed he was maleAnd "he" has also said he was female too, by his own hand, HERE>>>https://ibb.co/NFcsLgyYou just can't accept him/her for the compulsive liar that he is. Which to my mind makes you as bad, if not worse, than he.
We can't accept you - for you are a fake and a fraud. You follow the lies of fakes and frauds. Anyone who has actually read the Secret Gospel of Mark will know it is a fraud - and all of the experts agree. Yet, you like the meek and mild sheep - eat it up - swallow - it like the little pet you are. No self respecting academic anywhere in the world - would dare put his name or her name to saying that book has any merit or authencity.
Go away Doc, you are only fit to snipe and deny from the sidelines, with your only created thread in the religion forum coming well over a year ago, here>>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3990-the-archangels-are-listed-wrong
Typical Stephen, attack the person and then run away.
Dr. Franklin, - if only Stephen had even a tiny bit of your character - tenacity, skill, charm, and wow anything else - he would come up a long way in my estimation. But thanks for speaking up for me. Hmmm - why is it that no one but Brother speaks up for Stephen? twins ? Be careful Dr Franklin, some people have a nasty habit of saying I am everyone else. Perhaps you are me or I am you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As I indicated at the time, I ought not have written that. I do regret saying it. I own it of course because I said it. I also apologized at the time. And I would choose not to do it again in the future.
Yes I swore. I ought not have done so and therefore apologise. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6165/post-links/271016
For me - this is the end of the matter though. You don't have to forgive me - entirely up to you. Yet, for me, it is the end of it. I actually don't need your forgiveness or your understanding.
But since it appears your MO is to dig up dirt and throw it - I expect you will do so again and again.
By the way - the above only demonstrates that I have a long way to go in my sanctification. I have never said I was perfect. I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I don't think I can read the bible better than everyone else. I don't think I alone have the power to understand the secret messages in the Bible. In fact I don't think there are any hidden or secret messages in the Bible. I, unlike you, are not a conspiracist.
I admit it when I stuff up. As I did above - and as I have right now. Nevertheless, there is no reason to continue to feel sorry - when I have apologized. I don't feel bad about it. I said what I said at the time - but that was then and now is now. I answered your question with a yes. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6407/post-links/280183
So have a good old day dear Stephen, or is that Brother or is it perhaps even dimtim. You two seem to have something going on. But please refrain from calling me Ethang.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ok. So is all that you are saying, after all of your word salad is that, Jesus' "take" about the sermon or any of his sermons and including in the golden rule, is that we should love god first and above all else? <<<<<<<<<<<that is a question I would like you to answer. That only requires a yes or no answer and shouldn't be too difficult to you, a man of the cloth.
Assuming your question is :
Did Jesus understand the Golden Rule to be grounded in the truth that we should love God first and above all else - but to treat other people (positively) in the way we would (positively) want to be treated?
Then my answer is Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Are you admitting to hacking my account? Is this what this threat is about? Are you hoping that your bullying tactics will force me to follow your advice?
Wow! You really are full of yourself.
I have on numerous occasions confirmed I am a male and not a female. Yet you - and now Stephen have a copy of my profile page - which I take as a form of stalking. You have also engaged on a course of conduct intentionally designed to characterize me in as humiliating manner as possible. You have even gone so far as to take the word of a banned member of this site - Harikrish, and used his characterizations as a means of further humiliation.
This is not debate. This is narcissistic and psychotic behaviour. You are full of yourself.
It is well known that when people resort to attacking people it is conclusive evidence they have lost the argument.
I will now ask you once once - please stop engaging with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
LOL!
So I notice you have not denied hacking my profile. Was it you or the Brother's idea? And really????? Do you think that you posting something you ALLEGE I wrote is on any level credible. I can assert with absolute integrity that I have never written anything like that at any time on this forum. And I challenge to find otherwise.
It seems to me and I suspect others, that your so called research skills amount to plagiarism, a few cut and pastes and mixed in with a few swear words.
Nevertheless, just to be clear: Jesus was not a homosexual and so far there has not been one piece of evidence that has been presented that is more than innuendo and of the grossest speculation.
I suspect however that this thread will be shut down soon because of the way you have again brought to a new level of low.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Dr.Franklin
tradesecret already said he was a male, he confirmed itAnd "he" has also said he was female too,https://ibb.co/NFcsLgyYou just can't accept him for the compulsive liar that he is. Which to my mind makes you as bad, if not worse, than he.
It is very interesting, as you say, I have confirmed that I am male. I have confirmed I am not female. I have confirmed that I have not had a gender reassignment. Yet Brother has kept on and on and on about it. And now Stephen is joining in. I wondered awhile ago whether someone had hacked into my profile page since Brother kept mentioning it. Yet now Stephen produces an actual copy of my page just as Brother has been saying. Now I am convinced someone has been playing unfairly with my profile page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The verse uses the term "children". You know it and I know it and anyone who reads English might know it. Yet children is not exclusively always tied to minors. That is your argument and inference. All I have asked you to do is prove it is exclusively minors and YOU WONT DO IT. You can't do it.It is not my assertion. It is yours. I have refuted it. I contradicted it. I even referred to specific examples where it could not possibly be minors. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6165/post-links/279905Replying with a word like "children" means absolutely nothing. Tell me genius, who were the children of Israel? And who were the sons of God? Are you suggesting that every one of the children of Israel were minors? Are you suggesting that every son of God is a child? Surely even you are not that dumb? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6165/post-links/279905You are a fraud and you runaway to different ideas whenever you are confronted with the truth. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6165/post-links/279905
All these questions and what do you do? Runaway to different ideas whenever you are confronted with the truth. LOL!
Have you hacked my account as well? Both here and on debate.org.au? That would certainly explain why my Tradesecret (debateart.com) profile has changed? And perhaps it might explain such comments on another debate site?
Please stick to the topic. Don't run away and answer the questions properly. Ad hominin attacks - character attacks are what people who have lost the discussion resort to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Firstly this is not your thread. You don't get to issue commands.
Secondly, what part of 'I don't care what you think' don't you understand. You are a fraud and you runaway to different ideas whenever you are confronted with the truth.
Thirdly, I don't have an itch like you to prove everyone else wrong. I am not that insecure. I don't care whether you believe me or not. I won't lose any sleep over it. The verse uses the term "children". You know it and I know it and anyone who reads English might know it. Yet children is not exclusively always tied to minors. That is your argument and inference. All I have asked you to do is prove it is exclusively minors and YOU WONT DO IT. You can't do it.
It is not my assertion. It is yours. I have refuted it. I contradicted it. I even referred to specific examples where it could not possibly be minors. But you just shut your eyes to the truth. This is too important for you to let go. LOL! Even a quick google search can provide you with similar answers to mine. Yet perhaps you are EVEN too dumb to do this. You are a STUPID person. Seriously. I have not met too many people who even come close to your stupidity. All your so called learning has actually made you dumber.
I never quoted Newcombe. I quoted you talking about what a scholar he was. I like Newcombe. And whether you believe it or not I have read Newcombe. In fact I have one of his books on my desk - one in co authorship with the late D. James Kennedy, titled "what if the Bible has never been written?". I could quote from that book - but why do your homework for you?
You do realize that I was quoting you - you were the one I quoted. Why? Because you were the one making "big statements" about others. LOL! You really fail to follow an argument. I can't believe you wrote a paper. People generally get vetted for those - perhaps the college you went to was of a similar quality to you. Useless. Stupid. I am incredulous that you actually think I was attempting to quote any of those people or their arguments. Talk about not understanding how an argument works.
I don't have to quote chapter and verse. Unlike you I am not looking for proof texts to prove heresies. Just because you ask me to prove anything - does not put anything on me to do so. Replying with a word like "children" means absolutely nothing. Tell me genius, who were the children of Israel? And who were the sons of God? Are you suggesting that every one of the children of Israel were minors? Are you suggesting that every son of God is a child? Surely even you are not that dumb?
Oh and stop calling me ethang. The fact that you continue to do this just adds to the narrative of your inability to do proper research, study or perceive logically. I have denied I am ethang. And the reason is because I am not ethang. The only possibility I could think that confuses you so much is because ethang can read the bible - and you cannot. his answers probably come close to mine - and nowhere near yours. The alternative hypothesis is a much more plausible one - that Ethang knows how to read the bible - as do I and we are able therefore to draw similar conclusions. This also produces another plausible hypothesis - that you cannot read the bible properly and have no clue how to do so - except by reading your own little magic books - like the Secret Gospel of Mark - which has been proven utterly to be a fraudulent book. But hey Stephen - do what you must. But please answer the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So your answer is, NO, you can't prove it.
Of course I can prove it - I just can't be bothered. It is the default position. You want to add something which is not in the text. You prove it.
"So educated scholars such as Ahmed Osam , Dr David Rohl, Sir Laurence Gardner - to name a few - are all delusional in your opinion and have simply wasted absolute years - some a lifetime - inventing evidence to support the existence of the Old Testament characters, places and events? The last two being atheist. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1985/post-links/85254
Ok I'll play. Yes that is my comment.
Sorry no play. The point is - you are quite content to quote authors you respect - and then claim that people dismissing them are calling the delusional. You dismiss other credible people - thus dismissing them as delusional. Fact is - many respectable people have proven your "secret gospel of mark" a fraud. Yet you just smirk and keep pretending it is true.
Nope. Newcombe doesn't answer my question put to you. Newcombe in this instance is talking out "high crimes against the State of Rome", ie Les Majesty, for which Jesus AND Jesus Barabbas were charged. He is NOT talking about murdering children for being naughty. And thank you once more for highlighting and promoting my threads . I am sure that anyone interested will find it interesting. HERE>>
Jerry Newcombe does support what I have said above. I referred him because you suggested he knew what he was talking about. I am not going to link what he said. As I said above - this is your baby - you prove it.
Barabbas. More Lies! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/539-barabbas-more-lies?page=1And there is nothing Newcombe says in that thread that you have trawled will answer the question that I have put to you to you. So again, you are showing your incapability to do the simplest of research on a little 4 page thread of mine that takes only minutes to read.And you haven't even bothered to highlight where it is that you believe Newcombe answers the question that I have put to you, have you.So again, when you are ready.
I don't care what you think. I never said the writing you quote is the one that proves my point. I drew only the point that he agrees with me.
And again I am sure you remember your words. Academics and commentators are authoritative.I agree. And Yes, I do remember. That will be because I understand and appreciate the years and years and of hard work that they have put into their YEARS,and YEARS of research. You on the other hand have only been "passing on" on what you have been told without researching a single word that you have been fed. You say so here>>" I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received". #20
Well actually you are misquoting me, aren't you? Where did I ever say anywhere that I never did even a single word of research? In fact I am quite sure I would have said the reverse. But please find it. I predict you wont - because you are a LIAR and this just proves it again.
And you STILL haven't found and answer to my question .
I'm not looking for an answer to your question. It's your baby. Stop trying to pass it on to someone else. You say you highlight texts. But it is far more than that. I provided a reasonably plausible explanation and which has consistently applied throughout history. You don't like this explanation. Yet you can't prove it wrong. And then you REFUSE to find an example to prove yourself right. LOL!
But your problem here is that YOU say the bible is "NOT talking about a minor child". #256 I am asking you to show this from the the bible.
I have answered that. You simply refuse to admit it. The covenant position in relation to law was never for minors. It was for adults. I ask you to give an example of a minor being prosecuted. But you run away. You change the topic. You refer to it being law. Well prove it Stephen. Produce it or give up.
"That's debatable, and depends on what you recognise as "authority". I know I am better read in these scriptures than you are or ever will be.. And many things that I believe are backed up by academicis, scholars and extremely well educated authors. Unlike you, who relies on ever changing interpretations of words and whole verses in the scriptures where lies and deceit have become the norm in trying to explain away these unreliable, ambiguous, half stories" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/911/post-links/42668
The point here w is this "many things that I believe are backed up by academicis, scholars and extremely well educated authors." You hypocritically criticise me when I refer to academics. I don't change words or interpretations by myself. I do take notice of what the experts say. Experts which contradict your fraudulent authors.
And the only reason to kill such an ADULT child - if killing is a real physical death - and not a covenantal death - is if the crime committed was a heinous one.Lets see your biblical evidence for your biblical assumptions , Reverend "Tradey". And let me remind you of YOUR scripture again Reverend. The bible - where these punishments of death are concerned - clearly make the distinction between a "unruly CHILD" and an adult " stubborn and rebellious son".. You just don't know your scripture well enough. As I have proven over and over again.Why do I need to produce anything for you?Simply because you have claimed something.
Well actually you have claimed something. I just provided a plausible explanation. You suggest that the text includes minors. I said no it does not. Hence it is your baby. Stop trying to change the rules. You need to prove your point that this text includes minors. You have not done that so far. You simply make an assumption based on your own prejudices from the 21st Century.
And in the case you might referring to it is just such an offence.I made a mention of any offence so simply stop trying to build an argument around something that I have not said... yet.Ok. why can't I build an argument? Don't you like that?I has nothing to do with likening or disliking , STUPID!! You are attempting to create your argument around something that I have not said. I have simply asked you to provide evidence for something that YOU have said. FFS!
Yes I know what you are asking. But it is you are STUPID. You make the assertion - prove it. I say you are wrong. I say prove it. I say provide examples of minors being prosecuted. You say no - it is the law. But that is the point Stephen. You argue from silence. Stupid argument. no wonder you never passed college and got kicked out.
I don't particularly care if you don't see it as such - yet the OT does and so does God. I don't have to justify it.Yes I agree the OT clearly shows that the CHILD should be killed. And you do have to justify your gods punishments in the name of "love". But you can't.The bible says this:Leviticus 20:9" ‘For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him".So give us an example of where you say this law as you interpret it has ever been put into play?I don't have to you clown. We are talking biblical law & punishment. The bible says this is the LAW in Leviticus from the BIBLE,
The law did not apply to minors. Have you forgotten about the generation who did not know their left from their right? You who knows the bible more than anyone else? Why were they not punished?
Tradesecret wrote: I think cursing someone is the same as threatening to kill someone or hurt someone.Stephen wrote: Well what you think is irrelevant. YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT! And you have just admittedly agreed with what it is the OT says in relation to these vile punishments for simple "cursing" a parent. We have been hear before, Reverend "Tradey".If what I say was irrelevant, why did you bother responding?NOPE" I said - what you THINK is irrelevant, Reverend "Tradey". I want to see you answer my question where the bible shows that you are correct. You have said"Well the passage you might be referring to is NOT talking about a minor child. Rather it is referring to an ADULT child. ".
Of course you ask this question - because you know you can't answer it and apply the bible properly. This is caused avoiding the implications of the truth. Ouch.
but the burden here is on you. You are just to cowardly to admit it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus as a man was resurrected in flesh. Jesus as God did not die. There was no need for resurrection of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well the passage you might be referring to is NOT talking about a minor child. Rather it is referring to an ADULT child.And you can prove that can you?
I don't need to. Many respected commentators have already done so. And before you mock my use of commentators - don't forget your own high horse. Do you remember this?
"So educated scholars such as Ahmed Osam , Dr David Rohl, Sir Laurence Gardner - to name a few - are all delusional in your
opinion and have simply wasted absolute years - some a lifetime - inventing
evidence to support the existence of the Old Testament characters, places and
events? The last two being atheist. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1985/post-links/85254
And here is one who agrees with my interpretation - I am sure you remember his -
"Jerry Newcombe For God and Country website..<<<<
this is a guy who understands his scriptures." https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/539/post-links/24750. And if you can use Jerry so can I? Jerry has proved this.
And again I am sure you remember your words. Academics and commentators are authoritative. True they can be wrong. But you would not dismiss them would you?
"That's debatable, and depends on what you recognise as
"authority". I know I am better read in these scriptures than you are
or ever will be.. And many things that I belive are backed up by academicis,
scholars and extremely well educated authors. Unlike you, who relies on ever changing interpretations of
words and whole verses in the scriptures where lies and deceit have become the
norm in trying to explain away these unreliable, ambiguous, half stories" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/911/post-links/42668
And the only reason to kill such an ADULT child - if killing is a real physical death - and not a covenantal death - is if the crime committed was a heinous one.Lets see your biblical evidence for your biblical assumptions , Reverend "Tradey". And let me remind you of YOUR scripture again Reverend. The bible - where these punishments of death are concerned - clearly make the distinction between a "unruly CHILD" and an adult " stubborn and rebellious son".. You just don't know your scripture well enough. As I have proven over and over again.
Why do I need to produce anything for you? I don't see any reason to think that God would sentence minors to death for cursing their parents. Gee if he would let an entire generation of minors go free and not subject them to the sins of their parents - it would seem inconsistent with his nature. Yet, there is simply no evidence that God would punish a covenant minor with death for cursing their parents. It would be helpful if you - the one who knows the bible better than anyone else would give us perhaps a verse or two that shows that God does punish covenant minors. Now be a good boy and help out please.
And in the case you might referring to it is just such an offence.I made a mention of any offence so simply stop trying to build an argument around something that I have not said... yet.
Ok. why can't I build an argument? Don't you like that? Besides I am just highlighting the verses. And words within that. You can disagree - but you need to refute it.
I don't particularly care if you don't see it as such - yet the OT does and so does God. I don't have to justify it.Yes I agree the OT clearly shows that the CHILD should be killed. And you do have to justify your gods punishments in the name of "love". But you can't.The bible says this:Leviticus 20:9" ‘For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him".
So give us an example of where you say this law as you interpret it has ever been put into play? Speculation Stephen is not proof. No wonder you failed at school. No wonder you were never put into the list of prominent atheists. Perhaps you could ask Rosends - about whether or not this law was ever meant to apply to minors or not? You see there is consistency within the Scriptures. People could not just take the law into their own hands. People needed to come before the judged who would make judgments. Even in ancient Israel there is a age of culpability. And that age Stephen is 20. That is the age - by which people are able to determine their left hand from their right hand.
I think cursing someone is the same as threatening to kill someone or hurt someone.
Well what you think is irrelevant. YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT! And you have just admittedly agreed with what it is the OT says in relation to these vile punishments for simple "cursing" a parent. We have been hear before, Reverend "Tradey".
If what I say was irrelevant, why did you bother responding? I never said cursing was "simply". Cursing is cursing. It is calling down and invoking a supernatural harm to their parents. It is nothing short of idolatry. but you know this - you just want to try and make it sound like a silly little thing that makes God out to be a big old vindicate and nasty god. Why do i have to reinvent the wheel? You are the learned one of over 40 years learning. I am sure you have access to these things - and know already I am correct. You can put your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes with your hands - but you have nothing. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You are a washed up never was and sadly, you spend your time on forums trying to argue a discredited theory over and over again. Why do you do it to yourself?
Thanks for your concern for my health. I know you are being sincere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I am not a sexual deviant. I have never confessed to being a sexual deviant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Timid8967, the Hell bound Atheist fool,Hell is a place that the unintelligent believe in. A typical fear mongering tactic by those who have nothing better to discuss.
LOL @ you. Brother might be a fraud. Yet, you might be as well. You seem to touch on a lot of ideas given that you say you don't know much about Christianity or the Bible. Hell is a real place that is reserved for Satan and his angels. To suggest it is used as a fear mongering tactic is puerile. Jesus refers to Hell more than any other person in the Bible.
I as a True Christian, and even pseudo-christians like the ever so dumbfounded of the Bible TRADESECRET and FAUXLAW, all have to unfortunately masturbate our minds to feel good about Jesus actually existing, otherwise our faith is ZERO! Therefore Jesus has to exist to us where we have to run away from all that mumbo jumbo Satanic science stuff, and arguing actual empirical facts that Hell bound Atheists use in showing that Jesus didn’t exist! We laugh. LOL
It probably ought to be said - that as a confessor of believing in imaginary friends, and gods, that you have ZERO credibility to assure us that you are a True Christian. In fact, I suspect that pseudo-christian applies very aptly to you. Tradesecret and Faulaw are dumbfounded if they believe in god the way you do. I don't have a clue about what you are mean: mastubating your minds. Whatever does that mean or look like? but if believing in god is just about feeling good- then I am glad I am a non-theist. science is not satanic - satanic is just another made up imaginery thing .
Don't put Fauxlaw and me into the same group as Brother. Brother is a fraud. Fauxlaw is a LDS. I am a Protestant. Yet the evidence for God is not just a feeling. We don't believe in imaginary friends. Brother is a fraud. Don't confuse science with satanism. Christians think science is a good thing. Satanism on the other hand is superstitious nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have no idea why you continue on that old thing. Ethang and I are not the same person. We do not share the same password. We live on different continents. We are married to different ladies.
This old charade is simply - for want of a better word - DUMB.
Ethang and I actually have quite distinct doctrines and beliefs. If you actually had a clue about Christianity, you would have figured this out. Yet, since you are ignorant, I suppose it is difficult for you to determine our differences. This is why I think you and the Brother are one and the same. He is unable to differentiate between the denominations.
I would have thought anyone with any sense of biblical understanding and church history would see these things without too much problem. Obviously, it really is something that only TRUE believers sense and understand.
But hey, I don't mind if you get banned again for making up lies and innuendos. It fits perfectly well with the so called interpretation methodology you use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You will have to work out your problem with dimtim. But he does make a good point for an ATHIEST.
He has called you out - and it is just delightful watching you try to duck and weave his question.
You are the only true Christian - according to you. Dimtim just quotes you - and now it appears he wants an answer. When are you going to answer him?
Prove that God exists - or acknowledge you are the laughing bag for the whole of this forum.
I predict - you prefer to be the punching bag rather than answer the question - because then your facade loses everything you deem cool.
Come on Brother Thomas - you stand alone Christian - PROVE that GOD exists. Or become the proverbial dog poo that you are. LOL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Did you give yourself a tick? LOL!
Jesus is fully God. And he is fully man.
The Bible confirms this. I know you don't like it - but it is quite clear in its instructions to us.
Surely even you would not expect that when the bible is talking about Jesus as fully man that it is also going to say at the same time he is god. That would simply be nonsense. And no Christian would even give you the time of day.
Yet, the verses you have selected ALL prove Jesus is fully MAN. Jesus is human. Hallelujah.
If he is was not human in the flesh - he could not REPRESENT humanity on the cross. He could not represent us before God.
Jesus the Man is SEPARATE from Jesus who is God. Wow! Has it really taken you this long to figure this out?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Because you asked - you will find my response at https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6165/post-links/279262
I don't typically respond to you because - well - you are a moron. And not worth responding to.
It is rare you post anything significant. The last time you did - I think I responded.
I also refer you to https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6316/post-links/275655.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well the passage you might be referring to is NOT talking about a minor child. Rather it is referring to an ADULT child.
And the only reason to kill such an ADULT child - if killing is a real physical death - and not a covenantal death - is if the crime committed was a heinous one. And in the case you might referring to it is just such an offence. I don't particularly care if you don't see it as such - yet the OT does and so does God. I don't have to justify it.
I think cursing someone is the same as threatening to kill someone or hurt someone. I know you don't agree. But that is the affect of a curse. Curses are not done to make people feel loved - but because you want to hurt them. And when an Adult child does that their parents - well that demonstrates how evil they have become.
Created: