Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
You can't think what someone else thinks because you don't know what they are thinking anyway and if you did you would be that person. And that guy why does he deliberately show a book about october and another one about Lennin just behind him. Hes meaning to show off that he is a commie and anti God. There is nothing wrong with evolution per say it is just that evolution is not rue because it goes against what we already know is true and the Bible is the truth so how can an animal become another animal. It is just being stupid. But I know what other people think without knowing what they think because if they are thinking things that I am not thinking I can tell anyway which is not the way God wants us to think and it was Jesus who said anyway that it doesn't do any good for a man to think. Jesus said that we should Look at the birds of the air and not worry about anything else so I know not what someone is thinking but that they are thinking and that they should not be.
Did you say that all in one breath?
Thanks for making me smile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Here is another thought for you.
The Bible says that heaven and earth will be burnt up. And it talks about a new heaven and new earth.
So it sounds like the heaven that exists now and which people go to when they die is not the final heaven.
And also do you find it interesting how many times - heaven and earth are mentioned in the same phrase? Almost as if heaven is on earth.
Consider the Garden of Eden. A picture of Heaven. And yet it was planted on Earth.
And in Revelation - it is the city of God - which comes to earth. Heaven on Earth.
Fascinating.
Created:
-->
@rosends
this link might give a bit more detailthe other link was useful primarily as it showed that the order of texts (and which are included) are not exactly the same.
Yes again, helpful. It again notes however that the protestant OT and the Jewish bible is the same. All the same books. In a different Order.
I actually prefer to think of the Jewish Bible as a 22 part book. Following the Hebrew alphabet.
22 OT 27 NT - makes 49. 7 x 7. A perfect number.
I would also put the OT books in a different order as well.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Christians in the beginning of the church were Jewish people. They were not Gentiles. It is understandable why the Christians continued in the Jewish traditions in the first place and why they consider the term Judeo-Christian appropriate. It is not primarily a GENTILE religion. The Christian point of view is that the Christians are the continuation of the OT covenant people. We take the view that the OT Jew and the modern day Jew - and especially since the Temple was destroyed in or around AD 70 are quite distinct from each other.There was, early on, a Jerusalem church, and, according to some Jewish tradition, early Christian texts were fabricated by Jews to create a distinction between early Jesus-believing Jews and mainstream, Pharisaic Jews.
HI rosends, I do find you comfortable to talk with. Thanks for your response.
I can't speak for "some Jewish tradition". That is obviously in your domain. Christian records are pretty easy to find. There is much of it that has survived since its inception.
I am not sure what you mean by texts being fabricated by Jews. Why would they want to do that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
So when we hear over and over again arguments against the world being a sphere we should automatically think - "Well they are still being made - obviously the world must be flat". Or when we hear arguments against evolution over and over again - it obviously means that evolutionists have NEVER satisfactorily refuted these points.The evolutionists are wrong anyway because we know that the earth is not flat now anyway. Did you notice those books that guy had behind him? That tells it all doesn't it and there is no way he is going to understand if he keeps butting in like that.
Hello Utanity,
you really are a confusing person. Are you a Christian? By the way in my above post I never said evolution was wrong. I used it as an illustration in relation the kid's argument against "contrary arguments" and I did the same with the world being a ball. I was refuting his argument not his position. I am not sure that I understand what you are saying about books. On my shelves I have books by many atheists. And other books from many religions and worldviews. I have Karl Marx's books as well. But I am not a communist. I am not an atheist. And I am definitely a Christian.
I take the view that we should read widely -and particularly what others believe - it is always good to know where others are coming from. It is difficult to know what you think if you don't what other people think. You need other people to ensure that you can evaluate your own ideas. I say - go and get a few books from what other's think and hopefully it will broaden your viewpoint.
Created:
-->
@rosends
I agree with your sentiments about the term "Judeo-Christian". The underlying tenets which qualify are either from the Jewish texts or not. If Christians want to appropriate the Jewish texts then don't try to rope Judaism in as if it condones the new version.I am looking (maybe wrongly) at how the Jews of the 1st century AD would have viewed John the Baptist & how they view him today if they ever did have an opinion at all, and how christian view him today.The first thing to point out is this notion of "the baptist." The idea of "baptism" comes from a Jewish idea of ritual immersion. This was done in a particular type of body of water, at very specific times for particular reasons. It didn't require anyone else's intervention - the individual immerses himself. So Jews at the time would not understand someone's interest in (transitively) "baptizing" someone else.If for instance John was a priest ( and there are some biblical indications that he was)then would mean John was also a messiah from a Jewish stand point?Christians say a lot about John and it always fascinates me that they say a lot more about John than the bible itself has to say about him.If John was from the proper family/lineage to be a "priest" then that is what his caste would be. He would not have been anointed, nor COULD he be the messiah in any other sense.
Christians in the beginning of the church were Jewish people. They were not Gentiles. It is understandable why the Christians continued in the Jewish traditions in the first place and why they consider the term Judeo-Christian appropriate. It is not primarily a GENTILE religion. The Christian point of view is that the Christians are the continuation of the OT covenant people. We take the view that the OT Jew and the modern day Jew - and especially since the Temple was destroyed in or around AD 70 are quite distinct from each other.
The Christian position is that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied about in the OT. That this was recognized by some Jews at the time and that other Jews rejected him. When the temple was destroyed - it vindicated the Messiah's prophecy in the Gospels - and as such the Jewish world split into two. Those who were still waiting for the Messiah but without a temple and those who had realized the Messiah - who himself became the living temple. Understandable both sides disagreed with each other's position.
The prophecies relating to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations and that in him all nations of the world would be blessed - indicated that when the Messiah came - the uniqueness of Israel would have fulfilled its purpose - i.e. to reveal the Messiah. Hence the promise was first to the Jew. And why Jews were the first Christians. Yet, it also revealed that the Messiah would break down the walls of ethnicity and extend the promise of God to all nations. Hence Christians, first were Jews and then they extended and ingrafted into the covenant - Gentiles. Gentiles who previously were considered unclean. This was the entire purpose for the dream that Peter had with the sheet of food coming down from heaven.
It is also why there was so many disagreements in the early churches between the proper balance between Jewish law and the grace that came in Christ.
Paul, in his landmark text Romans beautifully explains the differences in the law and grace. Demonstrating that the child of promise ISAAC, was given by faith not by works.
Christians would focus more on the OT by itself that they would on the oral traditions. Interestingly, we would read the oral traditions - and they can give light to many of the scriptures - but unlike the Jewish modern tradition - we do not put the oral traditions on the same level as the Scriptures themselves. And I would think the Jews themselves give lip service to this idea as well. After all, they use the traditions to interpret the scriptures - not the scriptures to interpret the traditions. Still that is a matter for the Jewish religion.
Created:
-->
@rosends
The Jewish bible is not the same as the "Old Testament" and the gospels are not part of any bible which is why Jews don't have it. We have an oral text which is essential to understanding the bible. With out it, you can't really understand what the bible text says.
Hi Rosends,
that link does not really say that the OT that the Christians use is different from the Jewish Bible. Protestants don't refer to the Apocrypha as part of the Canon. Catholics, OC and High Anglicans place it in the bible - but interestingly hypothetically give it a lower authority than OT.
I agree that book order probably plays some part in understanding and interpretation. But not substantially. I also agree that the Oral Traditions play a much bigger part for Jewish interpreters than for Christians.
Yet I did not read anything in that link that makes me consider the OT and the Jewish bible as different.
I agree that the gospels are not part of the Jewish bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Hi yeah I got bored after listening to the out of context verses the kid pulls out in an attempt to dismiss Hitchens first comments.
Comments such - as we have heard them before and will continue to do so because they have never been refuted. LOL!
So when we hear over and over again arguments against the world being a sphere we should automatically think - "Well they are still being made - obviously the world must be flat". Or when we hear arguments against evolution over and over again - it obviously means that evolutionists have NEVER satisfactorily refuted these points.
Yeah great advice. A kid. Yep. And the only people likely to get sucked into it are probably other kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@BrotherDThomas
zedvictor4,YOUR REVEALING AND TRUTHFUL QUOTE: "I just thought that I had seen the word female in your profile....I probably confused you with someone else."The truth is the FACT that you did see Tradesecret's biography as a FEMALE recently as shown in the link below! I knew in how deceiving Tradesecret is when they are caught in embarrassment, and I knew Tradesecret would "try" and wiggle out of this predicament, therefore I took an image from their biography when it factually included TS as a female gender! https://ibb.co/bKmmtpWAs many of us know, Tradesecrets modus operandi within this forum is to HIDE and LIE when TS is easily caught red-handed in either being an ignorant Bible fool, or as in this case, a person that removed their female gender from their biography to save face relative to the topic that I have brought forth of TS going directly against Jesus by obviously changing genders as the revealing links explicitly show below!To sum up Tradesecrets embarrassment ONCE AGAIN is as follows:1. Tradesecret’s Biography where the Gender is MALE:2. Tradesecret’s Biography in being a FEMALE: (before TS had to insidiously change it to UNKNOWN to save face)3. Tradesecret’s Biography in gender now being UNKNOWN:In essence, I will always easily own Tradesecret’s presence upon this forum, thank you Jesus, praise!NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT DOESN'T SELF-INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES IN DISCUSSION WILL BE...?
WOW! and you think you are not stalking me? I wonder how many people's profiles you take photo's of. Tell me, am I not permitted to change and edit my profile? LOL!
I am surprised you did not take a photo of my original profile - you know the one where you say I was hiding. And a coward. And everything else under the sun.
I purposely never reveal information about myself. And when I first commenced here on this site - I consistently took that position.
And you howled about that. LOL! You wanted to know who I was - what denomination I am from? LOL!
You do realize that my profile is my profile. You have your own. EVERYone knows yours is FAKE FAKE FAKE.
LOL!
But your stalking me - is a tad crazy. Taking photos of my profile is a tad nasty. And I pretty much think it is probably close to breaching T. of C.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have admitted the thought of being the only one is absurd.Which Church flavor do you subscribe to?I am non-denominational. I believe the body of Christ is not an organization or a building but those who believe in Jesus Christ and what He says and did.
Hi PGA2.0
I have enjoyed reading your posts. But I have a question for you about the church. I don't want to divert the topic. So would you like me to pm you or to start a new topic or are you ok with it being added here?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The fact is that Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe, and Einstein had a concept of God.You are not aware of the vast time difference between Einstein's comments on God. Einstein said God does not play dice in 1926. In 1954, one year before he died,he wrote a letter that said, “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.” This shows that you manipulate facts to support your claim.
I would add "so what"?
People at different parts in their lives say different things that could be assumed to be inconsistent with each other. This is normal. Take Darwin for instance. Apparently, on his death bed he renounced his evolutionary theories to embrace God. I don't have a reference for this and I don't necessarily even believe it is to be true. Nevertheless it is one of the stories that get thrown about.
Generally people say in response to it - that he was close to death and people say anything on their death bed. IDK if that is true or not. The point however is - what part of a person's life is more characteristic of a person's view - at the beginning, midway, or at the end? Or are they all part of the person's life and character?
Einstein, as far I am aware, did not believe in God. Raised a Jew in Germany, he may well have had a basic understanding. Jews tend to have a persecution complex. Nazi Germany would certainly intensify that. His mind was brilliant - and flawed as well.
But in saying that, even at the end of his life, he no longer saw a necessity for "God", it does not change the truth that he might have said prior to that time. His prior statement seems in one sense - based more on reason - since he talking about the laws of the universe. His later statement is more about his personal understanding and opinion. The first was in an area of expertise for himself. The latter in a realm of which he was not an expert. Both may be correct or true. Yet why should we trust the first part of his life when is talking about an area of which he is an expert less than the latter part of his life on a subject of which he does not see himself as an expert?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stop being silly. You have answered nothing. Conjecture and what you think, assume, and believe doesn't count for anything.Biblical facts is what you need Reverend. Facts that you, with all your qualifications, should be able to put your hands on immediately.
Why would I want to stop being silly - after all you are my great model for silliness. LOL! You make me laugh and smile at your quick wit and creative innovations that nobody else can see. I am constantly amazed at the "secret knowledge" that you alone are privy to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My opinion is that God was asking Abraham to trust Him - that his promise could be trusted.Doesn't the text say "offer as a burnt sacrifice," and not "trust me"? You're talking about the moral of the story, actually, not what's the text of the story. The 'trust' part is only apparent at the end of the story, do you see what I'm saying? At the time in the story god says go kill and burn your son in my honor, to Abraham, it can only sound to Abraham like that's exactly what god wants to happen. Abraham doesn't doubt it, and he doesn't think "God won't let that happen, so I'll go along with this because I trust him." That's read into the story later, and interpreted in Hebrews apparently, but Hebrews isn't the text in question, and no one who wrote Hebrews was present or interviewed Abraham, so at best, the interpretation is conjecture after the fact.
Surely you would agree that the context of the story is bound to the promise that God made to him that he would become the father of many people through the child of promise ISAAC? How and indeed why would you even attempt to divorce this story from that context? After all, this story would make no sense unless the promise was being put at risk. The author of the writer of Hebrews is a legitimate interpretation of this text and is not inconsistent with it. Because of God's prior promise to Abraham I think it is legitimate to read the trust part from the start and not at the end. Only by ignoring completely God's promise to Abraham would any try and add it to the end - to try and give it some context.
In Abraham's mind - it seems that he believed that Isaac would come back and worship with him.I see your reading of verse 5, where he says to servants to stay here, we'll come back to you, as a way to keep the servants from trying to do the right thing and stop him from killing his only child, thinking he'd gone crazy. Reading it your way, Abraham DOES NOT have faith in the direct communication with god, because he was told to sacrifice his son, and not believing that was how things would end would mean that he thinks god is lying to him.
I suppose if one wants to ignore God's prior promise to Abraham that might be a plausible reading. Yet it also ignores Abraham's and indeed the Jewish view on resurrection. I think your conjecture and adding of motivation on Abraham's part is partly based on the atheist position of no-resurrection and no God. Abraham trusted God with his promise to him. He did not need to know all the ins and outs of it. Yet God had promised that Isaac as the promised child would be his seed and heir. If Isaac died and had no children, then the promise would be broken. In Abraham's mind - and I suggest all believers minds - would be the question- why would God promise something if he did not mean to keep it? Now an atheist may attribute all sorts of bad motives to God, but believer's don't. We really don't. We believe God is good. And when he promises to do something that he always keeps his word. And in Abraham's case, the very pregnancy of Sarah and then the birth of Isaac confirmed this totally.
Was God serious in his request to Abraham to sacrifice his Son? Absolutely.So god WAS serious when he said " Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering"? Why did Isaac not get sacrificed then?
I noticed you took a part of my response here. I said it depends what you meant by serious. God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac. The words in the Hebrew text indicate as "a burnt offering". I also said - and again you omitted it, that God did not intend for Isaac to die - we know that because he provided a lamb for the sacrifice. The reason that Isaac did not get sacrificed is because the thing that God was serious about was his promise to Abraham that he could be trusted.
Absolutely - not only did Abraham believe God in respect of the command, but also in relation to what would happen and moreover in that Isaac would come back with from the Mountain to worship God.So he believed god's command BUT believed god wouldn't go through with the command? That would mean god wasn't serious about it, and Abraham didn't believe thepart about killing his son, and nowhere does god tell Abraham Isaac would come back down the mountain.
I never said that Abraham did not believe that God would not go through with his command. I never indicated that God was not serious nor that Abraham did not take God seriously. Abraham believed that God is the author of life. That God can give and take and give again. Abraham knew that even if Isaac died that he would rise again. Abraham trusted God that his promise would be fulfilled. You need to need to misread the entire story of Abraham to miss this point.
- Is this a story about the depth of Abraham's faith?
Yes. And God's promise. The promise of death and resurrection.Why did god require a test at all, doesn't god know Abraham's faith?
A testing of one's faith is never about God - it is about the person who is being tested. It is like prayer. Prayer is not about getting God to change his mind - it is about the person praying - understanding that he is totally dependent upon God for everything.
In this particular story - the Jewish doctrine of resurrection is partly developed. It also reveals in part - the anguish of a Father and his son. A picture of GOD who sacrificed his own son for the sins of the world. A God who understands the power of life over death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Of course the Bible inept Tradesecrets life is their own, BUT, the body of Tradesecret is owned by Jesus, period!
And that is something I can completely agree with Brother. Except the part where you call me inept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
or tell us what Herod meant. That is the whole point of this thread , did you miss the title?
I have now on at least two separate occasions told you what he meant.
Can't you read?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
If Tradwsecret has had the gender reassignment surgery then he is probably a gay but I agree with you. If he is a deviant then he is not a true Christian. God has a way of sorting out the sheep from the cows.
Perhaps this is Hari resurrected from the dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I don't know, every time you come in here calling Protestants heretics of the "true church" it kind of makes me like them more.I mean, wow. "You were not really baptized." Was he not really saved, then?
Hi Castin,
Don't stress to much on my account. I think if we asked Mopac or indeed, even a Catholic priest whether or not a couple were married in any church but the OC or RC - whether they would think that we actually married is a bigger issue.
When a church does not recognize other church's authority to baptize or have communion - it also often includes marriage. I would imagine that if we asked Mopac - that he would think that my spouse and I were actually living in sin because we have not been married before God in the OC. I know Catholics take a similar view.
Interestingly, it is the same view Baptists have in relation to baptism. They don't recognize the authority of the Catholic, the OC, the Presbyerian, the Uniting Church, the Episcopalian or indeed any church which sprinkles or baptizes infants in their baptism. To me this is the same as saying I am living in a de-facto relationship.
On the under other - I might disagree with some of the teachings in each of these churches, yet, I accept their authority to practice these differences in good faith since they are churches of God.
IF the teach the divinity of Christ. If they teach the Trinity. If they teach the atonement of Christ. If they teach his death and resurrection and so far as they have been set up covenantally - they are in my opinion Christian Churches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If so, how would you know they weren't already homophobic?This is the most important point from the OP. Religious teachings are often used to justify homophobia as well as other anti-social behaviors but it is difficult to tell whether such teachings are actually the root cause. There are plenty of examples of non-homophobic religious people and also plenty of examples of non-religious homophobes. Therefore in the case of those that happen to be homophobic and use religious reasoning to justify it, such as for example our dear Mopac, I see no easy was to determine whether he would still be homophobic in the hypothetical case where he for some reason stopped being religious.
Interestingly, and perhaps Mopac will correct me, I would think that if Mopac is homophobic (which he certainly has not demonstrated so far in my view) it was not from reading the bible. The OC position is that the bible is interpreted by the church, not by individuals. Hence, if Mopac had a question about homosexuals from reading the bible, he would go to his priest and commentaries and determine from them his position on the subject. Again, not the book that causes - in the OC it is actually the interpretation of the clergy which will be the basis for people evaluating what they are told and then acting on it.
But Discipulus_Didicit, you are certainly correct to point out that homophobia arises within and without religious context as does pro-homosexuality. I disagree however that the Bible itself is used to justify homophobia by anyone. The Bible does not teach anyone to be afraid of homosexuals. It teaches that homosexuality along with adultery, and murder, and every other sin is sinful. People who read the bible are not taught to be afraid of these things but to recognize sin for sin. People who live in de-facto relationships are condemned by the Bible. Yet, religious people are not afraid of them. Yet they still would distance these people from the table of the Lord.
Homophobia is fear of homosexuality. Or even hatred of it I suppose in the more extreme sense. Yet the bible does not teach people to hate - but to love. Love your enemies.
People need to reflect not just on the perceived negatives - but also the perceived positives. The bible neither causes people to hate nor to love. It provides information which people need to evaluate and then respond to. That is the extent of its influence. Influence however is not cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Listen up Bible fool, I don't give a rats ass in what gender you are at any time subsequent to your ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgeries, understood?! What Jesus and I care about is your ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANCIES that goes directly against Jesus' TRUE words, DO-YOU-COMPREHEND-THIS- TIME? H-E-L-L-O, anybody home today? Obviously not!
Oh dearie dearie, Mr Brother DT,
I see the problem you have now. But let me clear it up for you.
When this little story was written to Harikrish - despite the fact that it was using hyperbole and a type of sarcasm far beyond your understanding, it was relating a story of an atheist who was a pervert visiting India on the way to Nepal. Notice that at the time the story was about an ATHEIST. One who later repented of his sins and changed.
Hopefully that clears it up for you. The alleged confessions of an atheist was able to be delivered from these terrible perversions and has changed his ways, thanks to your wonderful master Jesus.
Hence - while you are undoubtedly correct that such deviancies go against Jesus, these alleged deviancies occurred during the person's atheist search for truth. Thankfully however, the poor person found the light and discovered that atheism was the problem and left it behind to pursue the right.
It was correct of you to bring this to our attention - another example of a person redeemed from the perversion of Atheism after significant repentance and reflection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
God is real and does real things. When someone is supernatural that means doing magic tricks. God did only real tricks because he is the one and only god.
So who are you? What is your other name? Certainly you pretending to be dumber than you need to be? I don't think you are Stephen, Brother????
You certainly have me intrigued.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You can "lol" as many times as you wish , Reverend. But your statement is simply wrong not to mention thoughtless and irresponsible. And you a dealer in words.
but it brings me joy. And others too.
The words in the bible have caused people to want to spread the word of god and those same words in the bible has caused them to want to do his work. Why do you think that this urge is referred to as a " calling, " Reverend?
I notice you chose AGAIN not to engage with my points. Words are words. And that is all they are. A calling is not from the bible - it is from GOD the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not the Bible. You really need to learn how to read.
I think you have lied about yourself from day one Tradesecrete. Not that it is important to me. You may well work part time for the Samaritans or even The Red Cross in NSW or Sydney either is to be highly commended... if this be the case of course. But as for the rest of your imagined status and imagined qualifications, you have shown everything BUT intelligence or knowledge of the scriptures considering all the fields you claim to be qualified in, here >>> #20
I could care less what your opinion is about me. It does not change the facts. My personal life is my personal life. If I used part of my personal life to make a point, then so be it. I speak from real life - not from the imaginary parts of my alleged brain. I have downplayed my qualifications. It is you who seem to think they are important. LOL! It is you who chose to make them part of this discussion. Yes, I volunteered the information originally in context within a particular discussion. Yet you have endeavored on almost every occasion since then to try and make it the main point of discussion. It is you who have the issue not me. AND do you really EXPECT that I am going to prove to you on this public forum my qualifications without revealing my name? Surely even you are not that DUMB.
You never did say which academics & tutors that you actually studied under , did you?I studiedand was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church.
#91
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4953-apostasy-from-true-christianity?page=4Imagination eh.
That is true. And I never will. Because it is none of your business. And my quote above was directed not at you, but at Mopac. He can ask me. He can pm if he really wants to know. But it is frankly none of your business, since you are a fraud. At least the Brother is clear about his fraud. In his own small way there is some intellectual honesty about his persona.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
What Brother is saying is that you are gay because you are a deviant. Maybe you shouldn't have said you are one in that post you made because I don't think all Indians are deviants anyway.
Hello Utanity,
Who I am is none of your concern or of Brother DT. And it is irrelevant here on this site. If I am gay it is irrelevant. If I am trans, it is irrelevant. If I am female or male or something else it is irrelevant.
If I am 100 or 15 it is irrelevant.
This site if a forum site - and attacks on individuals are forbidden by the T of C.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm referring specifically to the tale in Genesis about the guy who god tells to take his only son up a mountain to kill then burn as a sacrifice. It's come up in another topic and is threatening to derail that.
I have found this always to be a fascinating story. I have always understood this this passage to a be a test of Abraham's faith in God. God had covenanted with Abraham - had promised him that he would have son and that through his son ISAAC he would be the father of many children. God's promise to Abraham was difficult in the first place because he and Sarah were old. Too old too have children. Yet, God promise to Sarah and Abraham was completed. They had a child. But this faith did not require a test - really - because they could do nothing about it. In fact when they tried to do something - it was to get a maid to have Abraham's child - Ismael. Yet he was not the child of promise. And this child has caused pain for the family of Abraham since. Abraham faith had been shown wanting. Then when he had the child of promise - God tested his faith in respect of the child. After all, how could God keep his promise to Abraham if Isaac died prematurely? God tested Abraham's faith. God as the author life was also the author of resurrection. Hebrews 11:17-19 reveals that Abraham did believe in the resurrection of the dead and that Isaac would be raised again. Even in the text of Genesis there is a hint in 22:5 that Isaac would not die. "We will worship and we will come back to you".
We know God is not in favour of human sacrifice - he directly prohibits it in Lev 18:21 and Deut 12:31. And the fact is even in this passage - the intention whatever it was - is that Isaac was going to live - and become the father of many people - even if he dies, he would live. This was the promise that God made to Abraham. And Abraham according to this text and to the book of Hebrews was clearly of the view that Isaac would live and come back and worship with his family.
- What's the moral of the story?
I know we like to talk about morals in stories - but the bible is not about producing morals. The better way is to ask what is the author trying to convey to us in the passage. The story is demonstrating that GOD is the author of life and of the resurrection. He who gives has the power to take away and give it back.
- Did god ask Abraham to kill his son or not?
My opinion is that God was asking Abraham to trust Him - that his promise could be trusted. The question here of course is what is death? Is death final or not? Is there a resurrection or not? For the author of life to take a man's life away is not the same as a man taking a life away. In Abraham's mind - it seems that he believed that Isaac would come back and worship with him.
Hence "kill" is superfluous in the context. In the text it does not use the word kill. He is asked to take his son and sacrifice him there as a burnt offering. In my view this would conjure up images of a death and honestly I think it needs to conjure up this image. After all, people cannot rise from the dead if they do not die first. Yet in the context - it is clear that God never wanted him to die - which is why he provided a lamb.
- Was god being serious?
It depends what you mean? Was God serious about testing Abraham's faith? Absolutely. Was God serious about keeping his promise to Abraham that his son ISAAC would be the father of many? Absolutely. Was God serious in his request to Abraham to sacrifice his Son? Absolutely.
- Did Abraham believe him
Absolutely - not only did Abraham believe God in respect of the command, but also in relation to what would happen and moreover in that Isaac would come back with from the Mountain to worship God.
- Is this a story about the depth of Abraham's faith?
Yes. And God's promise. The promise of death and resurrection.
One of things we need to get our head around is that God is the author of life. You and I are not. Since GOD can bring back to life anyone he chooses - death does not have power over him. Death does have power over us. When we kill - we know it is permanent. For God it is more a relocation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@BrotherDThomas
My gender, my sexual orientation, my body is mine. It is none of your business. And given that the Brother's act is entirely a façade, an act that is intentionally designed to ridicule Christianity, I see no reason to clarify anything about my personal life to anyone.
The fact that the Brother spends so much time attempting to get personal information out of me makes me concerned that he is attempting to steal my personal information. It surely is a form of stalking.
What he should do is spend more time attacking the arguments in the debates and the forums on topic rather than going for the person all of the time. Only Stephen really gives him a run in this particular aspect. Both attack the person - using ad hominin attacks - and they rarely get into the arguments per se. Flip and Flop we should call them.
My personal life is my personal life. AND I refuse to discuss further on the subject. If anyone wants to know my views about what was said on Debate.org. They are welcome to go and read everything in the context it was written. It has been gone over many times. If you NEED clarification - go and read the posts and the ones following. And following. And following.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You do realise that King Herod is talking about Jesus.Of course I do.Herod ( despite the fact Jesus and John were once alive at the same time) believed that John had returned and somehow possessed Jesus and " therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [Jesus]. And it is Herod's very first thought on hearing about the "miracles" Jesus was now performing.Now whether this possession was true or false is not the point. Herod, it shows, had reason to believe it was John specifically because of what he heard about JesusYou are either dense or refusing to see the obvious question that this enigmatic and ambiguous statement raises.What are the "mighty works" that John performed that are now - by Herod's own words - manifesting themselves "in him"/ Jesus?Herod had never met Jesus at this point. But he had though met John, and knew him well. He loved to converse with him. The bible even tells us that Herod protected John. So these " mighty works" instantly reminded Herod of John.
Just because you keep repeating the same question - does not make it a good question or even a question that arises from the passage. The verse DOES not say that John performed mighty works. You can conjecture all you like - but it simply is not there.
Herod was clearly speaking out of guilt - which made him completely paranoia. A superstition king who believed in ghosts - A little like Macbeth really. John could not hurt him while he was alive - clearly if Herod thought he could - he would not have killed him. Yet, now that he has killed him unjustly, his guilt has tripped him into paranoia. The words in this passage are recording his paranoia. They are not recording that John had come back from the dead and they are not recording that John had previously done mighty works. Herod saw Jesus - and flipped his wig.
For you to speculate is entirely up to yourself - but that is the most you can do. For others, like me to say - your speculation is nonsense is not avoiding the question and it is not saying we don't have an answer - it is saying - we think you are incorrect and that you have absolutely nothing. You are like you do on lots of other occasions, trying to build a doctrine - a dodgy one at that - on a passage which is clearly not saying what you are suggesting and in fact contradicts other passages in the bible - passages which you know about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Show me how the Baptist "brought" Jesus. Jesus went to John to be baptized, but Jesus had to convince John to do it. Seems he who did the "bringing" was Jesus.But John announced Jesus therefore he must have brought him there to do miracles and since all the miracles are in the book of John then that must mean something.
It is your assertion. It is up to you to prove it.
The Gospels on the other hand, indicate that John was baptizing and then Jesus turned up later. It is no different in some sense to me hearing that a good speaker was visiting the area, and I wanted to go and have a look. That would not be considered a miracle.
And the book of John was not written by John the Baptist. The book of John is traditionally attributed to John the Son of Zebedee, brother of James.
And the miracles of Jesus are recorded in ALL of the Gospels, not just Mark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
not when It comes to these scriptures I don't. After all my initial beliefs about them, I still stand by my over all opinion that - in the New Testament in particular- these scriptures are telling another story of a violent struggle for power among the many religious sects and factions.. I believe the story is there to be wheedled out from the many clues that betray the accepted story of man born of a virgin among straw and cows in a shed to became the messiah of the Jews / saviour of Christendom .LOL!Which part of my reply did you find funny. You asked a fkn question, I answered. So be polite enough to explain what you found so humorous.So it does have an agenda?In what sense . And it was just a few post ago that you were crying and accused me of "mocking you" and you call me "it". And I believe that you are confusing agenda with purpose. You really do not know anything at all do ,"Lawyer, Pastor , Chaplin" REVEREND!!!? #20<<<<<<<<<< Now that really IS something to "LOL" about.I have been waiting for you to reveal even a tiny bit.Then you should have simply asked if it was troubling you so much. . But that has been your problem all of your pitiful life hasn't it. You have never asked anything about anything at all. You have just been told and "passed it on" and without question.I have made it clear on many of my threads what I believe concerning these unreliable scriptures. I haven't ever hidden the fact.You have been very careful. LOL!Nope. Again, what the fk are you laughing about? Are you unbalanced? why the hysterics? I have always been open. I have said many times that I believe that there is another story below the surface of the ambiguous and unreliable biblical stories. So what and why you are wetting your nickers with laughter over it is beyond me.Well at least it explains somewhat the warped views you have.I have no warped views. If anyone here has warped views princess it is the cretinous that believe a man can walk on water and can bring to life dead rotten stinking corpse's that have been buried 6ft under for days, weeks and hundreds of years!!! Where as I simply believe that these so called "miracles" have other explainable meanings.So you tell me princess, which one of those opinions and beliefs sounds more "warped".And also why you NEVER reveal your true sources. I would be embarrassed too.I have told you many times. The source for my questions come DIRECTLY from the scriptures themselves. I read them, and I scrutinise them, and they throw up questions time and time again, You are just too fkn bone idle to do your own research of the bible itself never mind any extra biblical materiel that may or may not support the claims made by these gospel writers in the scriptures.Yet here you are , claiming to be "qualified" as A Lawyer and A Pastor and A Chaplin #20 to teach these scriptures to others, I think you called it "passing on" what you have been told. . If ever I have said anything that requires me to supply a source then I do. As I did when you reminded about my Son of God claim, which not ONLY contained BIBLICAL sources but supporting evidence from people that are REALY "qualified" to confirm or deny one claim or another.But I will tell you what REVEREND!? The next time you believe a comment or claim of mine deserves a source, then please don't be afraid you point it out.Just a reminder that you have ignored or forgotten my request numerous times now . here>>>>> #10 Why?And this too seems to have slipped your memory #54 but needs addressing a the earliest possible date.
I don't have anything to add. I just love the fact that Stephen got so ripped here. LOL! AND I have to repeat it. LOL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If the words of bible are to be believed then John had once been performing the same stunts that Jesus was now performing. The bible make that clear.14 And king Herod heard of him [Jesus]; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [Jesus].
You do realise that King Herod is talking about Jesus. Herod was feeling so guilt about killing John the Baptist that he feared he had come back from the dead. This verse does not say John has risen from the dead. Nor does it say that John had done mighty works. It is ONLY the words of King Herod commenting about Jesus and fearing that John had come back to haunt him. Herod was guilty to the core - his conscious was getting to him. The mighty works he is talking about here in this verse don't even refer to John they refer to Jesus.
In Herod's mind - John had come back from the dead and Jesus' miracles or mighty works were convincing him that he HEROD was stuffed. That is all this verse is saying. To try and draw a doctrine out of an obscure verse - is foolish and naive. It is not sensible and put you on the same level as David Koresh.
So the question has to be :>>>>>. what are the "mighty works" that John performed that are now - by Herod's own words - manifesting themselves "in him"/ Jesus? <<<<<
Done and dusted Stephen. The bible itself declared John performed no miracles. You are attempting to base a faulty doctrine on one verse. And that verse is an obscure verse which is King Herod talking out of fear. Not one of the characters in the rest of the story confirms your dodgy position. When people try and make a doctrine from an obscure verse talking about something else to try and make a point - it really shows the level of their understanding of reality.
One has to remember Utanity, that the Reverend Tradesecret wasn't there and neither was ethang5. But Herod was wasn't he? He was right there, amongst all the death and turmoil that Jesus ' appearance had caused.And remember too that Herod knew John personally. He liked to talk to him and he even protected him.. It never mentions who he was protecting him from , maybe Jesus or his rival disciples? Who knows?
King Herod was an adulterer. John the Baptist called him out. Herod had him killed because of his own lust for own daughter. You would take the word of an incestuous adulterer over the gospels? I don't need to be there to be able to read what was written. And Herod does not back up what you say anyway. That is nonsense. Did Herod know John - probably - I think they did talk - I think it is even possible that Herod was starting to listen to John - yet in the end - and because Herod believed John was a prophet of God, after he got drunk and lusted after his own daughter - and then gave into her desires - he killed John.
Herod stuffed up. He knew John was a prophet. That is all he needed to know to fear that God would judge him. And it ripped his heart out. When he saw Jesus - he pretty much out of guilt - figured Jesus was John coming back to haunt him. One thing people know about ghosts is that they do inhuman things - mighty things. Things they could not do when they were alive.
Herod killed John. If Herod really believed John could do miracles while he was alive would not kill him. Herod might have been immoral - but not dumb. Herod did not have to witness miracles to know John was a prophet. But if he killed John, and he came back alive - then miracles and mighty works would be expected of a ghost. Jesus in one sense played this part for Herod. Herod saw Jesus - who may well have looked like his cousin - IDK really. But Herod saw Jesus and thought John. And he saw Jesus' miracles - and thought "@#$%/. Now I am in for it.
Guilt plays nasty games with people's minds. But that does not make his paranoia truth. And what you are attempting to do is to take his paranoia and pretend it is more truthful than what the gospel writers themselves say about John. This is the essence of fake news that you are doing. Hence - once again you are revealed as a FRAUD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The bible CANNOT cause anyone to do anything.Well any educated person will know that it can and does.. The words of the scriptures for instance "have caused Mopac" to want to be a monk. He has even given it a go and will be returning to his monk home in the near future..Another poster here claims that the words of just two verse of the bible in particular had "Caused him" to believe that the whole bible was true and to be the word of god.The bible even CAUSES people to want to do the "lords work". what does that mean? it means ACTING on words. So stop with your semantic lawyer bullshit.Words are influential and they are POWERFUL. Written Words can cause people to breakdown. Written Words can cause people to be brave. Written Words can cause people to do all sorts of things.But you simply didn't even consider any of this before making your stupid. thoughtless and pathetic throw away statement in your haste to defend your scriptures and your god.You have had plenty of time to come here to this thread and explain or even retract your pathetic and illiterate thoughtless statement. What ever caused you to come here this late in the game? Was it words written to you by someone else that finely caused you to face the charge of ignorance and thoughtlessness that I have brought against you.Your statement is wrong, totally. Words cause among many other things, death, even written ones. Your god calls himself "THE WORD ", why do you think that is Chaplin, Pastor Lawyer?Attacking me all of the time -NO, NO. NO. Stop playing victim, again.You mean quoting you a lot of the time. such as here >>> "The Bible is a book. It can't cause anything",#3When we all know "a book full of words" can cause many things to happen.
You are such a fraud - it is amazing you can sleep at night. LOL!
Not one scrap of evidence that the Bible caused anything. LOL - Listen dear Stephen, the bible is a book of words. It does not have a mind of its own. It does not have legs or arms. It does not have the free will to do anything. Like any book, it tells a story. To suggest the Bible can do anything is like saying - someone could read your words and go out and commit suicide. Certainly I have read your words and thought "I need a drink". I sometimes feel like pulling my hair out when I read your drivel.
But your words don't actually cause me to do these things. Words are words. You simply did not engage with anything I wrote. You are a worse than a fraud.
The Bible did not cause Mopac to become a monk. Mopac chose to become a monk. And if Mopac had read the words of the bible - rather than listen to the Church and his mentors he would never have become a monk. But let's say for the argument he read the bible and after doing so - he evaluated what he read - responded to it - and made a choice. But the Bible did not make or cause him to do it. Influence - is not CAUSE. Please go to school and try and figure out the difference.
The Bible is a book - it can't do anything but be read. And when people read it - people will respond to it. And they will do differently depending on who they are.
just because words are powerful does not mean that they can cause you to do anything. It is a nonsense argument. And You know it - or perhaps you don't. LOL. Well perhaps you really a little green man.
As for you attacking me - I am not playing victim - I am calling you out. Big difference. Although I suspect that bullies and trolls would not appreciate the difference.
In another post to a fellow poster you commented about Ethang's change of behaviour. I could not help but think that you described your self perfectly.
You are a FRAUD. And worse than that - you are a pseudo fraud. You don't even know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Yes, I think you misunderstand.John Brought Jesus to the people right. And that was a miracle, even though the Bible did not say it was it did not say that it was not a miracle. Also, all the miracles that Jesus did were in the book of John which is about the miracles by Jesus.
Ok. You are incorrect though.
John DID not bring Jesus to the people. John announced him to the people. Quite a different thing. This was not a miracle. It is not described as one because it is not one. The bible does not call it one. No one really thinks it is. You are the only person I have ever tried to suggest it was a miracle. You alone in all of the world.
Jesus' miracles are described and mentioned in all of the Gospels. Mark 1: 29 - 34; Mark 1: 40 -42; Mark 2:1-12 is another. And the miracles keep going throughout all of the gospel.
Have you ever actually sat down and read Mark? Try it. The best way to do is to stop and give yourself - about 2 hours. Then sit down with a cuppa and start reading - and read it out loud. It was written to be read out loud. Mark is the easiest of the gospels to read - and the shortest. The tradition is that John Mark, who wrote the book used Peter as his primary source. And try to read it in one sitting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
All the Bible says is that John did not perform any miracles per say but the Bible didn't mention that the fact is it was a miracle that John brought Jesus and baptized him. Therefore, it had to be a miracle even though the Bible didn't say so.
John the Baptist did not bring Jesus. Jesus freely came to John and John did not even want to baptize Jesus. This is not a miracle.
John baptizing Jesus was not a miracle. The voice of God - from heaven was not a miracle of John's. John did not make it happen.
You are with great respect living in fantasy land.
You however said that even though Jesus made wine - that it was John's miracle. What did you mean by that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
It was John who performed the miracle of bringing Jesus therefore John did the miracle that allowed Jesus to perform the miracles that he did.
What does that even mean?
Is your logic the following:
John the Baptist announced Jesus was coming.
Jesus came. Therefore his coming was a miracle. And therefore a miracle of John.
If that is the situation - why attribute Jesus' personal miracles to John as well?
In any event - Stephen already provided the verses that said John the Baptist did not do any miracles. So you are incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thanks for the compliment - but some of us have to go work and don't have time to teach those who seem to have all the time in the world.
But throw me a bone - what you do want to talk about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Jesus never gave wine to John the Baptist. If you disagree with me - show me the passage where you claim it happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Whatever are you talking about? Jesus is the one to whom the miracle is accredited. John was not even at the Wedding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
John did perform miracle because it says so in the bible and you are wrong again because I said it the first time then you just said so without giving any evidence.
Give an example of verse of a miracle John did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Your wrong because Jesus did miracels in John and then they came out of him. Jesus made the wine then he gave it to John and John did the miracle so that means your wrong.
John did not perform any miracles. Duh!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Thank you for youre reply but it did not come out very well.
I wrote ?????.
What part about that did not come out well.
I am sorry. I was asking you to unpack what you wrote.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Just in case no one has taken the time to tell you this...That's an odd question.Christians don't believe in "gay".They don't care.I think that is presumptious on so many levels - and in particular to many gays who are Christian themselvesThat reflects more upon yourself than God.Christians believe in God.
Christians do believe in God. That should go without saying. And if "believe" is the point you are making - then perhaps there is more to it that I gave you credit for. I don't believe in Gays either. I am not sure that I would say I did not care. Yet, me saying I don't believe in gays, is not the same as saying I believe in God.
I happen to believe that gays exist. Yet I don't believe in gays any more than I believe in the Prime minister.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
There i only one bible and it is true because it is the word of god.
????
Created:
-->
@Utanity
But God didn't say to kill all the hommos he just said that we cant do some things with them.
????
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It means the standard one uses to judge claims on a moral basis, isn't necessarily dependent on whether or not they are connected to morality.The fact is - any morality that comes from/ is based on an agent is subjective - whereas things that aren't contingent on a mind are objective.You can make an objective claim that raping humans hurt humans and that pedophilia does the precise same thing.The only thing there is saying we should value human's well-being (I'm using the word to colloquially mean the physical and psychological state of a person),and considering we are humans, well you know, we ought to value what we are.
We are humans. I agree with that. In other words we are not animals. Rape was not an offence in Communist Russia. Did you know that? The reason why it was not an offence was because Communist Russia did not believe in private property rights. Rape is a violation of private property rights.
Rape hurts people and so does pedophilia. But is it always immoral to hurt people? For instance, locking someone up in prison is hurtful. Fining someone for speeding is hurtful. Calling someone a homophobe is hurtful. Personally, I find the notion of attempting to use "hurting people" as a standard for immorality is flawed. I don't think we should go out of our way to hurt people - but sometimes it is necessary and sometimes it is in the best interest of the person and the community. Sometimes it is the only way they will become better people.
The fact is - any morality that comes from/ is based on an agent is subjective - whereas things that aren't contingent on a mind are objective.
I don't understand. Please make it simple. Examples - illustrations. State, restate, explain, illustrate, state again. Or point, reason, example, point.
Why should humans value human? This is entirely inconsistent with evolution. The Survival of the Fittest - means - look out for no.1. The only value in looking out for someone else is in the benefit it brings you. Otherwise, there is no value in the other person, not intrinsically.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
why is it so hard to just acknowledge... "yes i would have supported the execution of active homosexuals as that was the command from God"? what's so wrong with that?
You are changing the goal posts here. You have gone from "if you were a jew during the old testament times, would you execute active homosexuals?" and "just curious. supposedly God commanded you to, so. " to "support[ing] the execution of active homosexuals".
The Christian and even Jewish response on this topic has been consistently that that individuals were never given permission to execute homosexuals. It was State sanctioned law. So no individuals would - no Christian or Jew in the OT would have executed homosexuals.
Now you have changed the topic ever so slightly to "would you support" the execution of active homosexuals? Ethang5 was answering the original question. As I did and as others have done.
If your question is really - do you support what God says in the bible? Then the answer is going to be yes.
But then we are going to have to qualify what that means? What does support mean? And what did God say? Who is going to determine that?
I wonder if your question really is" would you support someone in today's modern world to execute homosexuals on the basis that God "might have said it" in the OT?
My answer would be - we are not a theocratic state. If however a majority of people in our country - Christian, Non- Christian, atheist etc, decided that it was right to execute homosexuals - then it would be democratically right to do so - based on majority rules.
But would I support such a move on democratic rules? I would say I do not think that democracy determines right and wrong ultimately for me. It might for the generation at the time - but not for me. And even though democracy is a good political system mostly - it too has flaws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
LOL! My credibility is not at stake.
This is a forum site - debating site - not a dating site. Nor am I attempting to get a job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You simply know there is no getting away from such a profound statement don't you, ReverendAnd you a qualified lawyer and Chaplin and Pastor , supposedly a man that deals in words for a living!!! You haven't even the common decency to explain what it is you meant by your own ridiculous and thoughtless statement ."The Bible is a book. It can't cause anything",#3Are you saying the bible doesn't influence anyone at any time!? That "it can't cause" people to believe in for instance - life after death, so then cause them to behave in a certain way!? And are you saying that the bible "It can't cause " people to change their lives for the better?You have rendered the bible null and void not to mention - pointless, with your profound statement Reverend and you are far too ignorant to even realise it! You are a disgrace to your own calling and your oath as a lawyer!
Quick answer. The Bible is a book. It can't cause anything. People can look at a book, evaluate its ideas and add these to ideas they already have or don't have.Of Course Mises might take a different view. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5078/post-links/215971
Response to your first paragraph. I answered it and some of the other posters took it further. And answered far better than I could.
Response to your second paragraph. Does not even deserve a reply. That is called provocation and baiting.
Response to your third paragraph? The Bible is a book. In fact it is 66 books - a book case if you like - all rolled into one. It contains words. Words in a book cannot cause anyone to do anything. People can read the words or hear the words - and then choose how to respond to those words. But at the end of the day they are words.
Christians - as far as I know - do not believe that the words in the Bible are supernatural. They do not think that they have magical powers. In fact - Jesus made the point didn't to the Pharisees - you look into the scriptures and think you will find life. The turn of the Greek question implies he was questioning their motives.
The bible CANNOT cause anyone to do anything. This is the same as a violent video game. IT cannot cause anyone to do anything. Watching porn cannot cause people to do anything. They have no intrinsic power by themselves.
How people respond to these items - is a matter of the person who is using or reading them. It always comes back to the individual. Will words influence? Good question. But is influence the same as cause? And I would say no. Will words inspire? Yes. But this is the same as cause. Again I would say no. And the reason why I say no is because it is not a repeatable thing. It does not happen to every person every time. In other words, for something to be causing anything - it needs to be consistently doing so. That is how science works - that is how we understand cause and effect. Alcohol for instance is often used by defendants to excuse their crimes. They say - the drink made me do it. But this gets laughed out of court. Yes, alcohol has an influence on the person. Just like it has on many people. But the alcohol did not cause the person to commit the crime.
Some people read the bible and do one thing. Others do another. There is no CAUSE and EFFECT relationship with the bible and people. IT simply is false to say so.
As another poster up above indicated using the old - guns do not kill people argument. It is people who kill people. IF everyone who reads the bible did exactly the same effect then a case might be made that it CAUSES people to do that thing. But just because some people read it - and think - something and do something is not the CAUSE of the bible. It is the way the person who reads it reacts or responds to the words. The two are quite different things.
Response to your final paragraph. Another response is not needed. Attacking me all of the time - makes you look weak and lack credibility. You do know what ad hominin means don't you.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying - whenever I say objective - I am speaking of something that is true independent from any minds - I don't think anyone has objective morality. No, whenever I say that I mean my objective standard has no objective reason to connect to morality, so no, its just you not understanding the difference. Not to mention, Christians can have the same belief of me, and lots of atheist believe there to be objective morality.The rest is just repeated from before.
With great respect that makes no sense. Would you please give an example of what you mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I have no doubt of his smartness. This is why I choose when to respond and when not too.
Yet it is true - and no one denies it - that he is a fake person in a fake persona make fake claims about what Christians believe. Ultimately this is nothing less than a strawman argument.
I actually don't think he realizes that is the paradigm strawman in his parody. For all his smartness - which is forever spilling into this site - at the end of the day- a strawman argument can only be as strong as a strawman argument.
The other thing is the bigger question left unsaid and hidden in the background. Who is he and what has caused him to hide ETERNALLY behind a fake persona?
This sort of thing NEVER happens in a vacuum. Either he is hiding from himself or from someone else. Either he is ashamed of something he has done or he is afraid what someone else has done to him. Either way it is sad. Yet, his choice is to take it out on the Christian Church. This tends to make me think he has issues with the Church and something that has occurred to him. But that as many things is none of my business.
Yet, since he does take it out on the church and in such an obvious strawman tactic - it actually makes me sorry for him - obviously he is the victim.
Still none of my business - except everything he says - he makes it personal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You however are the master of running away from reality and truth. You live in a fake world - that makes Barbie sit up and notice.
A phony person pretending to be a phony person. A phony person with phony ideas.
If ever there was one who could be accused justifiably of running away it is you.
People might get a laugh out of you. But EVERYONE - bar no one thinks you are anything but a fraud.
Are you ever curious as to what people think - whenever they see you post anything? It is the only time we do think about you - a fake persona doing a fake impression of a fake strawman.
You do realize this? Yes, you are a parody. You win a prize for your parody. Good for you. But NOONE takes you serious.
AND the ironical thing is this: your parody which is an attempt to belittle and embarrass Christians - proves over and over again - the weakness of the Atheist's argument- and it reveals - as you do everytime you post anything - the STRAWMAN.
You are the ultimate STRAWMAN. And from now I will always call you by your new name. Brother STRAWMAN.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You never show they are faultless - you just quote a verse and then try and make assumptions. Whenever any person shows the passage means other that your opinion - you get narky. Or you accuse them of rewriting what it says.
It makes it difficult to have a conversation or discussion with you.
I just don't think you are interested in the truth - just about getting your agenda out.
Created: