Total posts: 3,520
-->
@secularmerlin
I am sorry, I don't understand how you say Adam and Eve were created flawed. What particular flaw are we talking about?Whichever flaw led to the fall. Perhaps gullibility in that they were taken in by the snake or perhaps willfulness in that they did not follow instructions. I am not prepared to commit to a particular flaw necessarily but those are two possibilities. Whatever argument you want to offer they clearly were not worthy of continued residency in the garden. Any argument to the contrary is in direct conflict of the story. They were deemed unworthy by their actions and ejected fro the garden by the Yahweh.
If we are to go on the source documents, God made them without flaw. You continue to insert flaw into what was made despite the source documents clearly saying otherwise.
Is being gullible a flaw? But were they gullible? I would suggest the so called flaw you are actually after is "free will". Although personally, I don't think free will is a flaw. God gave humanity a brain to evaluate the things that they were looking at and to weigh up the different ramifications of eating the fruit. They weighed up the ramifications and thought the risk was worth it.
Obviously to this point God has only presented himself as good and kind even as he had laid down the rules which seem harsh to many of us. Perhaps they thought God was naïve. Perhaps they thought God was hiding things from them? Perhaps they thought a good and a loving God would never be mean to them? But at the end of the day - it was not a flaw which caused them to sin - it was their choice to do it.
Is free will a flaw? I don't think so. If I was making a robot to carry out my commands perfectly, then it would be a flaw. Yet If I desired someone to love me freely of their own free will, then it would not be a flaw. God does not force people to love him or to obey his commands. HE encourages them to do so because it is the right thing to do. And when they don't obey his commands he will punish or discipline them. This is however not compulsion per se. Yet God is not going to be restrained by humanity's choices to disobey him either. He does not need us.
Yes, Adam and Eve were put out of the garden. Their treason made them unworthy. They were kicked out his family. Yet, God was willing for them to come back into his family, anytime they repented of theirs sins and chose to love him. Notice that Adam and Eve and even Satan, did not repent. Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed Satan. Did they repent?
Yet up until the time they ate the fruit, they were worthy - made without flaw. Intelligent, - reasoning creatures - at the height of their powers.
So if this was not God's first mistake, what was?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not mocking any poster here. I am arguably mocking a likely fictional character in a very old very questionable book. I'm not even trying to mock the Yahweh. I'm just being honest about my observations and opinions regarding the story that we have agreed to use as the reference material. I have not mentioned any of the posters here in a mocking or derogatory way. If you are offended just by someone questioning and disagreeing with your beliefs then debate might not be your thing.
I will address this - for the record the first paragraph simply was not helpful and I disagreed with it.
Yet, here I do need to point out that my original post here was not directed towards you. Mostly I have found you to be courteous in your manner of discussion and at least attempting to be honest in your discussions. It was directed towards another poster who I think changes the goal posts all of the times, is accusatory in his manner and refuses to play by the same rules he expects others to simply go along with. Secondly, my opening post was directed I suppose generally at others perhaps you - who are inconsistent I think in the way you approach the bible as evidence for what you want to attack and then then dismiss it for other things.
I do find that unhelpful. It certainly is not a way you are ever going to convince anyone of anything. As for being offended - I could care less about people trying to be offensive in most cases - but when they change the rules or call me a liar, that is intentionally being offensive and hurtful. Or when they refuse to acknowledge that their position is wrong. I think that lacks intellectual dishonesty. I like debate - when the same rules apply to all, where it is not primarily ad hominen attack - and when both sides can acknowledge fair points on the other side.
This is why I did not direct this opening post to you specifically. So far - despite the fact that we do disagree on many things - there is not generally a vitriolic attitude of nastiness prevalent in our discussions. Admittedly I sometimes am sardonic and even over the top. Yet mostly I try to remain calm and balanced in my approach. I value logic and philosophy and good arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Then you must be a Mormon, right? Because Joseph Smith doesn't admit the book of Mormon, which he transcribed from divine inspiration in the 19th century, is fiction. According to him, it's true. And to all the Mormons. The point SecMer is making is that a book doesn't have to be a true story to evaluate the characters in it. And your point, "You cannot use the Bible to show that God is evil but reject the other cialims in it," would reflexively mean that to accept any claim in the bible, one must accept all claims in it as fact, not pick and choose which ones you like to draw a character in some way that is otherwise inconsistent with the book.
SecMer point of a book not having to be a true story to evaluate characters might be correct. Yet even if it is correct, it does not go the heart of my original post.
I never said one had to accept any or all claims in it. My point was that one cannot on one hand eagerly use the bible as evidence to depict the character of God - and then disregard the bible as evidence per se for everything else.
The Bible is not a fictional book. Parts of it might be. But it is one book made up of 66 books written over a long period of time. To dismiss it in relation to any other thing except to disparage the character of GOD is not even sensible.
If people took that view many things would not been discovered in history - places etc. Many historians, many archeologists, many authors have commenced with the bible and been intrigued by its information and gone looking for things which others - possibly like you - have dismissed - and then discovered amazing things and things which have been utilized in other areas.
Here is one for you to ponder. The continental plates and their drift. Who was the first person to suggest such a thing? A creationist who believed the bible. Based on a passage he read in the bible - he started thinking about what it meant and then got his map out and theorised how it might have been one continent originally and theorised about how it divided. At the time the scientific community laughed at him - imagine believing the bible might have anything to say in relation to science. They mocked him and laughed him out of the scientific community. And then several years after than - another scientist looked at the information and theories of the creationist and changed one thing. He said - if we were to suggest it happened over millions of years - rather than a short time, then this is really quite excellent. And lo and behold he became famous etc etc - and now most people who study continental plates and their drift use it fine. Yet, but for the creationist - this probably would never have occurred. Ironical really. But there you go.
My point is and remains the same - it is irrational to dismiss the bible as evidence in relation to why I might believe something to be true. When someone says to me - prove something to me. There are various ways of proving things. Scientific proof is not the only valid proof. In fact if it was - then no court case would ever find anyone guilty or not guilty. No economist would ever produce a theory. No humanist in history would ever be able to prove anything. There are hard sciences and there are soft sciences. Most of the assumptions in relation to statistical analysis have demonstrably been shown to false. Yet we still use them.
Revelation is a valid form of evidence. It might not be for everyone. But so what? Every person will put their own subjective weight on the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions. Yet to refuse to admit it as evidence is a different matter. In a court room - often you will have witnesses giving conflicting evidence. It is all evidence - and often these conflicting testimonies are on the same side. Yet a judge won't dismiss the evidence just because they are conflicting. He may well attach more weight to one that other - but this does not rule out the evidence presented. And at other times, some evidence which is adduced is ruled out after some discussion. And some things which people want to admit are ruled out - because it is not relevant, it is tainted or biased, it is hearsay, etc etc.
But before it is ruled out or not adduced as being relevant - there is a ruling. And that ruling is not by the opposition - but by agreement between the two parties or by the judge. It is not simply a unilateral decision made by one party because they don't accept it as evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
yeah i'm disappointed in the opening poster. illogical post. for reasons others have pointed out.
Ok - which parts were illogical?
No one up above might have agreed and all took offence - yet no proved it was illogical. Mostly they referred to analogy and said "aha" it does not work there - therefore you are wrong". I am pretty disappointed that you actually think that is a real argument.
But given some of your other responses. It does not surprise me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It seems to be quite ok to use the bible by non-believers as evidence of how bad and evil God is when they want to make a point about the evils of religion. So at that point it is considered ok to be evidence.Only if it is the agreed upon source material for assessing the character of the hypothetical god under discussion. If for example you had been told to refer to the book rather than to any Christian(s) in order to make such determinations. In much the same way one might use Star Wars movies to assess Han Solo's competence as an escape artist even while accepting that Star Wars is not useful in determining any facit of reality because it is a work of fiction. I am perfectly happy to entertain hypothetical situations and discuss the characteristics of fictional characters.In other words even if there is no Yahweh the figure presented in the bible can still be discussed using the source material as a guide for said discussion.
With respect, the character of God is not the only subject up for discussion in a religious forum. Anything pertaining to religion and indeed non-faith is up for discussion and therefore anything that any person believes is relevant evidence is also admissible. Otherwise it is not a religious forum, but a secular forum posing as a religious forum in order to ridicule and mock people of a religious manner.
And even if for the sake of the argument that everything in the religious forum is contained only within "understanding the character of God" then everything within the book is available as evidence. And respectfully, once it is admitted as evidence in relation to God's character - then unless there is good reason to reject it otherwise, it can be used to discuss other matters.
The analogy to Star Wars or to Harry Potter are flawed in many ways. One is that Hans Solo is not only a fictional character in someone's fictional book, he is not the author. Christians whether you agree with them or not - take the character of God not only from how he is presented in the Bible but at the author as well. Hans Solo did not write his own character's personality.
And even if we take your argument at its height - which I don't concede, even then it does not follow that Christian's beliefs in relation to other matters such as creation cannot be admitted as relevant evidence in this discussion. For some one to deny that a Christian's belief in creation cannot refer to the Genesis Story or say it is not evidence is simply incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
Recently, and probably longer than that - in the religious forum it seems that some people think that they are the arbiter of all wisdom of what is evidence and what is not.
It seems to be quite ok to use the bible by non-believers as evidence of how bad and evil God is when they want to make a point about the evils of religion. So at that point it is considered ok to be evidence.
But then when the same people ask for evidence for why religious people believe certain things - and they use the bible as evidence - it gets rejected.
You cannot on one hand use the bible as evidence to prove God is evil and then reject other people's use of the bible as evidence in relation to matters of the same God and religion. You cannot use the bible as evidence to say God is a murderous serial killer and also reject its usage as evidence for God creating the world in six days. That is just dumb and inconsistent and unhelpful.
Fact is - if you think God is evil because you are using the bible as evidence - then you can't reject it as evidence for anything else relating to religion or God.
And when you do - you make a mockery out of what is evidence and what it is not. And more than that - you make a mockery and fool of yourself.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It is not clutching at straws. Sin does make you stupid. You don't have to agree with me - I could care less. But it is not clutching at straws. Sin has tainted almost every aspect of our lives - we live in it, we sleep in it. we eat in it. And we die in it.Sin is the most pervasive problem in our society - and most people are so seduced by it that they can't even recognize it. Sin blinds us the reality of its existence as such a pervasive thing.It is however the problem Jesus came to deal with because it was humanity's biggest issue. That is the point. To say it is clutching at straws PROVES without a shadow of the doubt that you have no idea about Christianity and it certainly PROVES that any so called reading of the bible by you is itself tainted by sin.
What do you mean?Explain this sin that you are so obsessed with.
When people sin they sin against God. It is the demonstration of their rebellion and treason against God. People sometimes think that sin is really a little thing, a small offence, like telling a white lie. Yet humanity has been sentenced to death for their sin - for their treason against God and at the moment for want of a better expression - we are living in a prison for people who are on death row. This was the essence of the original sin. TREASON. And why everyone is born into it.
God in his grace and mercy however has provided a way for everyone who is prepared to give their allegiance back to him. And he has even paid the price for the treachery they have committed. And this price was Jesus. The second member of the Triune God.
This is what Christianity is about: trusting or pledging your allegiance to Jesus. It is not about rules. It is not about regulations or paying money. It is about freedom from the prison we live in which is sin infested into every part and aspect of our lives. Sin is what makes people see the God of the bible as evil and terrible. IT is the same way every prisoner sees their judge and executioner.
But in Christ, freedom is available even here on this planet. Without Christ we are all slaves to sin. In Christ, Our eyes are opened and we start to see how sin taints the way we think and view life.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I referred to Genesis and gave you that as evidence. That is my response. And it is an answer. Stop lying. You know that it is evidence.
And I have never said God created sin. Sin is what humans do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sorry Stephen,
since when has Pew Research been evidence? And the dailymail LOL! is that what you call evidence? On what basis? I am asking for evidence and you never provide any. LOL you are a joke.
I am still waiting for any evidence from you.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I did answer your questions. You just don't like my answers because you want me to answer in a particular way.
In any event, you have not produced any evidence at all to support any of your assertions. You blindly say in faith whatever you want. An example "No you haven't. And this is where you, as most Christians do, resort to blatantly telling lies. This is why I am of the opinion that religious faith has to be a mental illness."
See what I mean. I answer and you just add "no you haven't" Not any evidence to support that assertion. I respond with paragraphs - and you still say I have not answered. Then you make another accusation and assertion - about me telling lies. What lie did I tell? Where is your evidence? Again nothing to show for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I will start to use evidence when you do. Referring to a youtube clip is not evidence - not even close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
but who am i to say this is not reasonable, and is bat shit crazy?
Of course it is reasonable? Why would you suggest otherwise?
Let's break it down.
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.
Suppose in the town next door to where you live, some Nazi fascists got a foothold and starting influencing people to shoot and kill blacks in that town to the point that all of the blacks were killed. Would you just sit back and do nothing? Or would you inform the police and the governor and expect someone to do something about that group of people who were living in the town next door? And what happens if before the police do anything, your daughter comes home from university and says that she is now moving to the town next door because they are just trying to make the world a better place? What would you do? Would you restrain her or let her go and do it because you believe in unconditional love and will support her even though she has now become a Nazi and is also starting to influence your son and your wife thinks that "she needs to find herself".
The question is: Would you care? Or would you want to do something about it? I suggest that if you are a half decent person you would want to do something about it for your community and for your kid's sake, let alone all of the black people who live in your township who would be next in line.
In the first place - the sentence above is along similar lines. It is about parent's and others who consider that what is happening in the next town is dangerous and that something needs to be done about it for the sake of their own community and children.
In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you,
What an amazing sentence in the middle of this paragraph. Funny how you seemed to gloss over this line. In other words, even after they had heard about something happening in the next town, that was not a reason to attack it. First they had to do due diligence. They had to examine the facts carefully. And then - and only then if they find it to be true - that such a detestable act has occurred. And in those times the foreign gods were probably encouraging the sexual exploitation of minors and then sacrificing them to their gods, inter alia. Only after such findings had been proved. Now for the record, this does not sound like vigilante justice - this sounds like a court room scene. This was not a command to the people to go and kill or attack any people. It was a command in relation to law and order and so executed by the State at the time. Hence, why the emphasis is on examine the facts carefully and then if found to be true.
you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.
The army or the State or the police or whoever was in control of the judicial proceedings was then to organise law enforcement of the town which has committed unlawful and detestable things. In our time they would pick them up and throw them into prison or in America, depending upon what the detestable thing was - they might be executed as individuals.
In that time - it was the entire town who had undergone detestable matters - and possibly misled or corrupted by the few worthless rabble. Still if a mother had been influenced to let her children be sexually exploited and then sacrificed to some god, I think her punishment ought to be proportionate to her crime. And if the state determined this to be the case then well so be it. In our country people are being put into prison for 6 months for not wearing a mask. So being destroyed for sacrificing your children to gods is proportionate. (Now I know it does not expressly say what these people were doing - except encouraging people to worship foreign gods, but historically, it is very easy to find out what this meant in those times.) Destroying their livestock as well seems somewhat harsh to our eyes and ears. Yet, it probably served to ensure that any survivors in the town did not attempt to rebuild the city and recommence their detestable practices.
Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.
Fair enough as well. When evil is expunged it is good to remember and to worship what is good. Plunder is just material possessions. Even in our state we don't allow people to retain the tainted goods of the criminals.
That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
As I said above, given the nature of what was happening typically in these acts of worshiping foreign gods in those times, anything to assist and remind people not to go back to those practises ought to be encouraged. Leaving the town ruined forever, if it stops even one child from being molested is a good thing. Surely you would agree. And if this sort of thing was happening in our land, and we did nothing about it - then may well God burn with anger towards us. We would after all in my opinion deserve it. If we knew it was happening and refused to stop it. Yet, if we did do something about it, then why would we not want to enjoy the mercy of God?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
(IF) the Yahweh created Adam and Eve (AND) they were flawed enough to eat the fruit (AND) the Yahweh is all knowing and all powerful (THEN) he intentionally created beings that did not live up to his standards.Why not simply create beings who were worthier than Adam and Eve to begin with? Whatever flaw in our character led to the fall was put there by the Yahweh if the bible is to be believed.
I am sorry, I don't understand how you say Adam and Eve were created flawed. What particular flaw are we talking about? The story clearly indicates that God made humanity very good. Clearly up to his own standards. So I am not sure it is factual to suggest that they were not made to his standards.
It seems that you are suggesting that because Adam and Eve were capable of making a poor decision that they are flawed. Why don't we explore that.
How does it make them flawed? If they had chosen to make the right decision, would that make them any less flawed? After all, it would still be the same person.
Does having the ability to choose and make good or poor decisions - mean we are flawed? Why? Please walk me through what you mean?
As for worthier, I think they were made worthy. In fact I take the view that they were more worthy than anyone else who has lived, save for Jesus.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Put more plainly the Yahweh's first mistake was making flawed and unworthy beings. If you are right about the picture the bible paints of our our character as a species then according to the bible it is Yahweh who decided to make us so shoddily.
Ok. But if we rely on the source material, God did make humanity without flaws. He called them very good. He thought they were good enough to rule the world. There certainly is no indication of flaws in either Adam or Eve.
So if they flawed, how so?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Creating beings he knew ahead of time would piss him off and then punishing them for pissing him off.
Ok. So how is this wrong?
I have children. I knew before I had children that they would piss me off from time to time. I also knew before I had children that I would also have to discipline them and punish them.
Isn't that normal? Why is that wrong? Even though I knew these things about my children, I don't think it was wrong to have them and in fact I would do it again.
Please explain why it is wrong?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok.
Let's go back to Genesis in the Garden of Eden.
Where do you think God went wrong?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
God never condoned rape. How absurd? The commandments clearly forbids rape. Adultery and fornication were forbidden. Genocide is a vexed question. Yet one the progressives in society advocate today by wanting to destroy culturally any fascists and any good things in their history. It is no different in substance. In any event - God never said to wipe out any nation for the sake of wiping them out. It was always because that nation was particularly evil. God never condoned slavery in the sense of kidnapping. Slavery in the OT is not the same as slavery in other societies. It firstly was built on the premise that each person owned their own body and as part of that ownership - the ability to sell their body. Secondly, there were time limits on the length of that slavery. Thirdly, until the 18th century - every culture practised slavery of some form. It is remarkable that the rules in place in the OT are far more merciful than others. Fouthly, it was the Christian teaching that - promoted and brought about the abolition of slavery. Without the Christian religion - slavery would still be rife in ever culture in the world.
Taking virgins as a spoil of war. ??? Do you have any concept of war? And in those times? What society which lived in those times did not rape and murder or take the woman as slaves? Come on? How many of those cultures told their soldiers not rape the woman? Nor to not commit adultery? You have no concept of history. This is one reason you find things so bad in the Bible. You should compare how humane it was compared to EVERY other nation at the time?
You live in a very soft 21st century where parents hover over their children in case they get dirt on their fingers or where they will be scarred for life if someone says something that offends them. This culture is the pathetic one which every years murders babies. It is one where we go to war against the weak and the poor and the vulnerable in the name of progress. You think the bible times were bad - well wake up and have a look at the one you live in - and probably condone.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tradesecret, The Debate Runaway, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, and now the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows,
Lies.
MEMBERS OF THE DEBATEART RELIGION FORUM, WHY DOES TRADESECRET RUN AWAY FROM DEBATING ME AND REWRITING THE SCRIPTURES?:
You know the reason I won't debate you formally. Yet I am very happy to debate you in the forums. The reason is you do not have the capacity to debate formally. You proved this by failing to acknowledge you were wrong.
Do any of you know why TRADESECRET has to RUN AWAY from a debate with me relative to Jesus' TRUE modus operandi? He calls himself a Christian, but he is no more a TRUE Christian than Osama Bin Laden! Jesus' inspired words state with specificity that TRADESECRET is to defend the faith, but instead, he RUNS AWAY from it! LOL!
I have not run away from you. Choosing not to debate you is dependent upon you owning your mistakes, admitting you were wrong and showing some intellectual honesty. All that is needed for a debate with me is for you to stop being a goose and start doing the right thing.
I deleted texts that once again taken out of context by you and used by poorly.
I can only assume that TRADESECRET cannot debate me because there're too many "chicken feathers" piled to high around his computer screen and keyboard, therefore this is the excuse to RUN AWAY from me because he can't see! Yes, I have seen MANY pseudo-christians like ol' TRADESECRET that what they thought they knew regarding our faith, when challenged, they were just little sophomoric little kids that hid under their beds until TRUE Christians like me left the forum.
Your assumptions are themselves the revealer of a cowardly heart. Funny, it is me who is still here - while you run of and pretend you have no access to the internet or to a mobile phone. And the fact that you have the audacity to pretend to be a Christian really is as poor as it gets.
TRADESECRET actually has the audacity to say that Jesus is NOT the Trinity in the Old Testament! I know, QUIT LAUGHING! LOL. At the embarrassment for TRADESECRET again, and again, and again, He does not read his JUDEO-Christian Bible, where Jesus' inspired words state that Jesus, as the brutal serial killer HEBREW God Yahweh that I have had to accept, does not change. Therefore, when Jesus is the Triune Doctrine in the NewTestament, He was the Triune in the Old Testament as well. 2+2=4.
Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. He is not the Trinity. And just because you don't understand this - which clearly you don't or otherwise are intentionally being provocative is your problem not mine. Jesus is not a serial killer. As you will recall from your own failure - you could not find one example in the Gospels where Jesus killed anyone. Not even one.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)
Jesus is the same - yesterday and today and forever. This does not make him the Trinity. In fact it confirms rather that he is not the Trinity. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit. And the Father is not the Spirit. They are three separate persons. One God - yet three persons. I repeat myself even though I know you choose not to understand.
One of the most embarrassing acts of TRADESECRET is the fact that he is too embarrassed to tell us his division of Christianity? As if his biography page wasn't embarrassing enough with absolutely NO CONTENT WHATSOEVER, have you ever met a pseudo-christian like TRADESECRET that didn't want to tell you his division of the faith? NO! He keeps proffering that we should know what division of the faith he follows, like we're supposed to be in a "game show" setting, but that is no complete answer.
Not embarrassed - just not playing your game. You have not revealed what denomination you are. In fact you pretend to be Christian when you are not. Your entire page is a lie and a fabrication. There is no rule that I need to reveal all of this information or I would never have been permitted to remain on this forum. Christians - that is real ones - would have no trouble knowing what denomination I am. I have pretty much given you most of the clues anyway. The problem for you - is that my views are so similar to almost every other Christian that you cannot actually determine what my particular flavor is. Again confirming that Christians generally do hold to the same views - despite your lies to the contrary. This is not a game show. This is why I am not playing your game. You are the centre of attention here - all eyes are on you - why? Because we all love a good comedy - even in its tragic reality.
We can only assume that what ever division of Christianity that TRADESECRET follows must be outright disgusting, and therefore he is obviously ashamed about it, whereas Jesus states that we are NOT to be ashamed of our faith: "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." (Luke 9:26)
Not telling you directly what my denomination is - has got nothing to do with being ashamed of Jesus. You are nuts. If you asked me directly if I was a " ... " I might tell you. But how is not disclosing to you - a fraud and a charlatan - the same as being ashamed of Jesus? you just make things up - take things out of context - and demonstrate you are a fool.
As is shown by TRADESECRETS embarrassing presence within this forum, he is easily made the "whipping post" as a runaway pseudo-chiristian, that from this time forward, any words from this poor example of a Christian are nothing but more excuses to RUN AWAY from Christianity. Sad indeed. :(
If I am a whipping post for Jesus, then bring out the whips. I would be gladly persecuted for him. I fear that there is nothing in your life - except maybe yourself that you would risk anything for. You certainly do not value truth or honesty or integrity. Is it any wonder that most find you boorish.
Created:
Posted in:
It will longer at number one that atheism will ever be. In fact atheism will never be number one.
the point is - Christianity is the largest religion in the world and has been for a long time.
Is Islam really increasing as fast as it alleged? In Europe - it is facing enormous pressures. A look at the average number of children in Europe by Muslims has dropped significantly. Why? Secular education.
In fact all over the world - numbers in population are dropping significantly. This is probably to do with a bit of a perfect storm. People are having less children normally. Females are starting families later because females are working longer. Getting pregnant is actually getting more difficult. the idea that we are overpopulated has led to the UN and other organisations teaching females to use contraception. Contraception is leading to not only less births - but causing significant harm in females wanting to get pregnant - hence the rise in IVF treatment.
Numbers are declining. The UN provides future predictions in a number of manners - projections based on previous high rates of growth - projections based on current growths and projections based on the estimations of where all of this is heading. Very interesting reading for those inclined to see data from the UN as informative.
Statistics actually note that around the world population growth is declining fastest in secular - mostly former soviet bloc nations. Then in the West - except in USA and Israel.
Middle East and Asian numbers are also declining - such that Japan is expected to essentially die out in 100 years. China's numbers are declining - India is still rising - but even India's numbers overall are declining over time. Very fascinating Stats.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think using this the victim card is pointless. I don't think God is a victim. But nor do I think humanity is either. In fact in the biblical picture it is humanity who is the perpetrator of evil and violence. So for it to be used and likened to a victim is simply Absurd - as I said - the prisons are full of innocents? Victims?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
LOL! yes it does paint humanity in a bad light next to God. IT also paints many good pictures of humanity as well - as they get their act together and do the right thing.
Turning this into a victim blaming thing is the essence of leftist foolishness.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
No more than any other attempt at victim blaming or excusing of an abuser.
I missed that when I was replying to the rest of your comment. I think that is a problematic comment. And false.
It is like you begin with your assumptions and then just work it out to the end.
God made man and gave him a beautiful garden to live in. Man told God to F O. Who is the abuser? Who is the victim?
The prisons are full of innocent people, aren't they?
Adam and Eve are not the victims here. They did the crime - intentionally. That is the nuts and bolts of it.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think you have things in reverse here. You are the one who has to explain why the bible as translated into english paints such a negative picture of the Yahweh's character. I'm just not especially interested in your explanation. No more than any other attempt at victim blaming or excusing of an abuser.
But that is the thing. I don't think it paints God's character in a negative manner. I think it paints humanity in a bad light. And God in a wonderful light who has gone beyond what any human would do for someone who has treated him so badly.
Hence, why I don't agree that I have things in reverse. You and others constantly say - look how bad this situation is. I say - sorry it makes sense to me that God would do that. It is lawful and just or gracious and merciful. Yet you or others continue to miss these things concentrating on what you perceive to be the negatives.
I think part of the reason is because you start with the idea that God is a nasty piece of work and thereby this colors everything you see in the bible. On the other hand I start with the fact that God is good and just and this colors everything in the bible for me. I do find it amazing that despite all of the nasty things you see God doing - you always omit to commend the good things that he does do. Surely there is a reason for that if it is not a bias you have. I have a reason for the nasty things you think God does - I call it justice - lawful acts of a God who acts justly.
On the other hand, you see nasty things and think cruel and vindictive. Yet - then you never consider God in his gracious light and in the lovely and kind and merciful things he does. You just conveniently omit these things - pretend they don't exist. Yet to do so I think is intellectually dishonest. But the thing is - if you do start to consider these things -then you will have to start asking yourself other questions - and that I think is part of the reason you don't want to address it.
So for the record - I don't feel any need to justify or rationalise the bible. I really don't. Yet I think you do. And you do it constantly because when people like me say God is good and holy and just and merciful it gets up your nose. And when we point out the selfless acts he does - such as sending Jesus - (himself ) to die for people who hate him - rather than see the good - you just think nasty thoughts.
Hence why I say I dont have to rationalise things. The onus is on you - not me. You need to be able to articulate why God does anything nice to anybody. And since the bible is full of such examples, that is a lot of rationalising if you really do think he is a mean and vindictive God.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Because he is hoping that I will answer them for him or her. And you know sometimes I will and i sometimes I wont. I don't have answers for everything.
But given the OP is a liberal in his or her theology - I think they want the opportunity to shoot down those who are not liberal.
I am not a fundamentalist. Nor am I Evangelical. I am a Confessionalist. I hold a high value of the Bible, the Church, and Church Tradition.
The OP believes the bible is inspired but not infallible nor inerrant. And falsely suggests that such things are a modern notion. Obviously much less educated than he or she thinks he or she is - to make such a ridiculous suggestion. Our culture today is post Gutenberg. The Bible was written pre- Gutenberg. It was also written pre-democracy as we understand culture today. It was written in a time when religion was not divorced from anything else. In a time before secularism and before atheism was a thing. Yes there were atheists back then - but not who divorced from faith (at least intellectually). Aristotle was an atheist. Yet, he was quick to admit his own faith in the same. Times have changed. Yet to suggest no inerrancy was the situation in the day reveals a gross ignorance of history, the church, and the ancient Jewish religion.
I think that means he or she can pick and choose what they like - you know - do a Bob Hope, sit on the fence and see how it all pans out. A bit like the luke warm christian in the book of Revelation. Ethang called him or her insincere. I think that probably is apt.
On the other hand, I think if people are sincere that they might like to actually explore ideas rather than present what might be considered controversial ideas with a clear bias as to their disgust of them.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think Ethang was correct. I think that you and some others on this site are insincere.
Or am I incorrect? Will you answer questions or do you think I just am fodder for your games?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
->@Tradesecret wrote The bible is God's word.I asked you to _ Prove it. You avoided the question and certainly provided no evidence for your claim.I am obviously too dumb to find them.Yes I know you are.And you still haven't come up with the evidence that your lord god almighty created the whole universe and everything in it in only six days.->@Tradesecret wrote I assume you mean 24 hours days?What you "assume" is not an answer to the question, your bible states clearly that he created everything ( including sin) in six days. But here you are on the threshold of rewriting the scripture.Then you avoided these question from n8nrgmi who asked a question and you reply #3 . You don't stop there either do you? No you then fire a sally of questions without even attempting to address his very genuine question here #5This is not to mention the questions from the Brother here:1. How did Noah fit 1.2 million species upon the 510 foot long, 75 foot wide, and 45 foot high Ark (Genesis 6:15)?2. Since Jesus created DINOSAURS, how were those fitted upon the Ark as well in 8 pairs of them?3. You mentioned water tanks for the fish, then how many gallons of water do you think it took for 8 pairs of Blue Whales that are 100 feet in length within said tanks?4. How did Noah and family keep the known 10,000 species of birds x 8 pairs, which equals 80,000 birds, from flyings away from the Ark?5. There are 33,600 known species of fish x 8 pairs = 268,800 fish, how were they kept alive without eating each other in the water tanks that you mentioned?6. How did Noah keep 900,000 known species of insects from being trampled by the 19.2 million species of animals upon the Ark?7. Noah's Ark was upon the waters for 371 days (Genesis 8:14-15), where did the food come from to feed 19.2 million of animal species, 80,000 birds, 268,800 fish, 900,000 insects, and most importantly, 8 pairs of each of the dinosaurs?So you have a bit of a log jam of your own when it comes to you failing to answering questions.
So really I have answered all of your questions and you are simply not willing to accept my answers. In other words I did not avoid any question. You seem to have an issue with people asking you questions. The reason I ask a question in response to a question is to clarify what your real question is. Most of the questions you ask are so vague that anyone can provide any answer they want . I like to have some qualification because when I do answer your SIMPLISTICALLY put questions - you always respond with "you did not answer my question." And you know what that demonstrates that you have an AGENDA. It also means that if you don't like my answer that you just say that is not evidence.
As for the above questions: I provided evidence. yep real evidence. And evidence that a court would adduce - even if Stephen wont. I provided evidence from the book itself which declared it was God's word. From Psalm 119. Now you don't put any weight on it - for whatever dodgy reasons. But that does not prevent it from being evidence. But you say- I don't want evidence, I want proof. Well the fact is Stephen you don't want proof. And the reason for that is simple - you would not know what proof was if you fell over it. I say this because you reject everyone's proof - you don't agree with - but are quite happy to accept the Brother's despite his blatant lies without even giving it a thought. ( I sometimes wonder whether you and the Brother are simply the same person with two alto egos)
For many people in the world - proof has been made if the bible declares it to be the case. Now you can reject that - it hardly matters to me. But you can't even prove to me that you know how to read. And to be perfectly honest - I think your skills at reading are worse than my minor children. But there you have it. What makes proof for one person is not going to the same for another. I take the view that you WOULD NOT accept any proof - so it would not matter if I poured out a tip truck full of evidence and proof - you would still deny it. And why do I say that? Because you want everyone else to provide proof - and then you just deny whatever they provide as not being evidence (which is an ignorant thing to do in the first place) or proof.
What proof would you accept that the Bible is God's word? And I am asking for general types of proof that everybody might accept. Oh by the way - no one has ever provided any evidence or proof to me that evolution is true. Therefore it must not be true.
As for the question of God creating the world in 6 days. I asked the qualifier question to you - yes I put it in the format of "I assume" you mean 24 hour literal days. I thought you had the knowledge to figure out that there are many views about what 6 days of creation means. In the end it does not matter. My evidence is simple. And yes, it is evidence. I don't care how much weight you put on it - since you pick and choose your own bible verses and make them say whatever you want them to say - even when it is blatantly false. Genesis tells us God created the world in six days. This is repeated through the bible in many other places. It is called revelation. Do I have evidence aside from that? Well I could draw your attention to the days of the week we as a society still adhere to. You would say - so what? Don't they just naturally fit into the seasons etc? Well as a matter of a fact they do. But this just adds to the evidence that there is a plan behind it, not just some random event. Humans predominantly work and live within this 7 day week better than other time frames. the Russian attempted a 10 day week. IT fell over very quickly. Others have attempted other time days - again they all fall over. There appears to be something inherent in the 7 day week for humanity. This is evidence of course - which needs to be interpreted - but not proof. But it is consistent with God's creation of the world in 6 days. And I would add it much more evidence than the world was created over millions and billions of years- no proof no evidence for that position.
As for the Brother's questions - I have addressed them and I did before you decided to ask me to repeat them. For the record, my conversations with him are responses to his questions. You don't get the right to say I avoid them as though they are your questions. And besides you are the one who omits to respond to questions.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Please go and find these questions. I am obviously too dumb to find them.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok that is a lovely story. And thanks for that thought. But pardon me if I don't think you are now trying to find an honorable way of getting out of the predicament you are in.
I know you have just indicated that you think I am trying to rationalise things. I am not. The Bible is clear from my point of view. God created the world - and man rebelled intentionally. When we start with this position - GOD is good and there is no rationalisation required from my end on this occasion or any future one. It all sits on you then.
When you start with your view that man was childlike in intellect, then it puts God in a terrible position. Obviously then you would think that I have to rationalise. Yet if you can prove that man is so childlike that he had no lawful capacity to intentionally sin then I would have to fall on my sword. Hence I dont think that I will have to rationalise anything.
I don't see what you have to lose. I certainly don't think the rationalisation is going to be from my side.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
So that is how it going to be? You just ask questions and never answer them. Well you are the one who made the claim, not me. I think you just make stuff up and then when asked to prove it, you realise you cannot prove it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Oh yes they did and on many occasions and right from the off. You just cannot accept it.
So prove it this time. Don't just make false assertions.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I could tell you what I think. Easy peasey. But I would prefer you to work the logic with me. That way we cant accuse each other of not understanding.
You suggest that Adam and Eve were children, if not in body, at least mentally. And that they dont have the capacity to make informed decisions.
If you are correct, then consistent with thought - God may well be as you seem to interpret.
I on the hand think that God acted properly and justly and even very mercifully and with tremendous grace. And that these adults as they were created - knew exactly what they were doing - and knowing full well the implications for them and their entire human race - and went ahead and did it anyway. And if this is correct, then God may well be the way I understand and indeed seem him.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood your view.
Hence I think that we need to examine both Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit to see if they knew what was going on - and particularly if they knew before they ate the fruit things was is good or not. And then we need to see if afterwards, that is after they ate the fruit - you know after their eyes were opened, whether this meant that they suddenly knew good as it was portrayed before the fall or evil for that matter, or whether what they knew to be good before the fall - now is something else.
It seems to me that you indicated that the tree gave them the understanding to know good and evil. Well I just want us to test your theory with the evidence or data in the text.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
So are you going to answer the question or not?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
That does not answer the question.
Do you think 3:6 takes place before she ate the fruit?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
So let me repeat the question:
Is there any evidence that Adam and Eve knew what was good and evil before they ate the fruit?
I think the issue is not translation but interpretation.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because sometimes the Hebrew is useful especially when we get stuck in a knot over the nuance of an English word.
The question is do Adam and Eve know whether anything is good or not prior to eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is the book improperly translated? Can the text as is not be trusted to convey the Yahweh's character in the english translations in popular usage?
Translation is a complicated matter. All translators have to weigh up how to communicate thoughts to another language. Do they translate as closely as possible to the literal letter and meaning of the words or do they translate as to convey the meaning of the ideas presented. Each of the various English translations are somewhere on this line somewhere between the two points. I am comfortable with our English bible translators and their attempts to convey the right balance as they understand it. Nevertheless, sometimes it is almost impossible to convey certain concepts properly. Two other difficulties that translators have is that they have to translate from a time zone some thousands of years ago to day. They also have to try and convey from that particular culture which is also foreign from ours to our own. All I am saying is that at least reading the Hebrew allows me to appreciate some of the difficult concepts and ideas that translators have to resolve when translating. I think they do a good job. I just always reserve the right to refer to the Hebrew than get stuck in the nuanced meaning of an English word.
So on that basis I think it is fair to say that as best they are able to - I think that the translators do their best job with good intentions. I do not think there is any attempt to deceive - but that does not mean that their own culture does not get in the way sometimes.
For our purposes - I am happy to use English.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't speak Hebrew. Sorry to disappoint
Ok then. Well I do so I suppose that is a bonus.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have never met a Christian who thought Adam did not know it was wrong to eat the fruit. I do not know any Christian who would take that view.So just to clear this up too before we continue should I refer to some Christian(s) or to the book itself when discussing the book?
The book please. and quote it in Hebrew please.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
1. How did Noah fit 1.2 million species upon the 510 foot long, 75 foot wide, and 45 foot high Ark (Genesis 6:15)?
I said the Ark was a big boat. Assuming your dimensions are correct - this means it was not much smaller than the Titanic. It was shorter by 350 feet. Its breadth was about 15 less. And its height about half. This is still larger than most boats today. It was a huge boat. And it has three decks.
Titanic was 882 feet 9 inches (269.06 m) long with a maximum breadth of 92 feet 6 inches (28.19 m). Her total height, measured from the base of the keel to the top of the bridge, was 104 feet (32 m).
How do you come you come up with the number of species? I suspect this is the now diversified current number - after years of adaption and which probably increases every year still. I would take the view potentially that this number could be reduced significantly and still enable all current species to have been on the ark.
2. Since Jesus created DINOSAURS, how were those fitted upon the Ark as well in 8 pairs of them?
The average size of a dinosaur was about the size of a chicken. Most of the large ones were once small and probably came from eggs. There is no reason why (given the hypothetical picture we are drawing) the dinosaurs were not infants.
3. You mentioned water tanks for the fish, then how many gallons of water do you think it took for 8 pairs of Blue Whales that are 100 feet in length within said tanks?
Yep. I mentioned fish tanks - and not because I think there were by the way. It was a throw away line I used in the context. But let's say there was - so what? Blue Whales swim in Salt Water. And even Blue Wales don't start life at a 100 feet in length.
4. How did Noah and family keep the known 10,000 species of birds x 8 pairs, which equals 80,000 birds, from flyings away from the Ark?
Again species then or species now. Even the typical evolutionist accepts that adaption will help see new species arise. We have seen 1000s of new species in the past 100 years. I also expect that if there was no land anywhere - that any self respecting bird is only going to keep flying until they found the boat again. Problem solved. In fact even in the story - there is an example of this. First Noah sent out a bird - but it flew back because there was no land. Then he sent it out again and it found some land but still flew back - probably because there was no food. And then he sent out another one - and it did not come back. And besides - the Ark was shut. No one could get in or get out unless the door was opened.
5. There are 33,600 known species of fish x 8 pairs = 268,800 fish, how were they kept alive without eating each other in the water tanks that you mentioned?
Yeah, I already said I don't know how any of this worked and everything I am saying is speculation. It actually does not worry me one iota. But given you like to talk nonsense and ask questions - I am happy to oblige. Of course - I am not saying this happened - just thinking about how it might happen - not just blindly saying - "impossible" like you.
I am not convinced by the notion that somehow the fish had to be put into the ark. There has never been a worldwide flood since that occasion so we really don't know that there were not safe spots or less dangerous spots for either the salt or fresh water fish. Yeah we can speculate and laugh about different ideas- but really that is about the most you can do. How many species of fish existed at that time - and how many exist now? Is it the same? Highly unlikely. Why did they not eat each other? Perhaps they were eating other food? Who knows?
6. How did Noah keep 900,000 known species of insects from being trampled by the 19.2 million species of animals upon the Ark?
How many species then and how many now? How do they manage to survive in our world without getting trampled by animals now? How many needed to go into the Ark and how many did not need too? Perhaps - they were all in larvae stage and stored under their beds. Who knows? The story does not tell us - and it is not relevant to the story. It is only relevant to you because you want to disprove the story. Yet, you are arguing from silence. and that is hardly a credible argument as you well know. I don't have to explain it to you. It does not change my views - because it is not relevant to my views. You cannot figure out how the big bang happened - so what? Do we just throw that theory in the bin. It makes no sense whatsoever - to say first there was nothing - and then for no particular reason that nothing exploded and then from that explosion despite the impossible odds against it - life happened and then everything has so much amazing order. It takes more faith to believe that humdinger of a fairy tale than the story of Noah.
7. Noah's Ark was upon the waters for 371 days (Genesis 8:14-15), where did the food come from to feed 19.2 million of animal species, 80,000 birds, 268,800 fish, 900,000 insects, and most importantly, 8 pairs of each of the dinosaurs?
Yes - again which is more believable - a universe that all by itself happened v a God planned and made world. You have your fairy story and I have mine. Mine at least makes some sense - even if not everything. Yours - well it has nothing going for it - except people who wish to deny my story. They and you have nothing. Nothing at all.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The sumerian epic and the Genesis flood are not similar and the Jews did not borrow from anyone for this story.
The stories are so different it is remarkable that anyone actually tries to make this suggestion and the so called similarities - are so general in nature that one wonders why anyone would bother.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
First thing, there was no loss whatsoever, but just biblical axioms shown to you that you continue to run away from relative to Jesus being a serial murderer, understood? The fact remains that the millions of HIs creation that He judged, were DEAD in the aftermath, get it? When lives are lost and don't exist anymore in this instance, Jesus becomes a serial murderer, irrelative to His Judging or not! 2+2=4. The comical irony is the fact that you are an alleged attorney? Where did you get your schooling, a Cracker Jacks Box? LOL!
Yep - and that is why we won't ever have a need to debate. Primarily because you can't recognize or accept defeat. What part of "murder" don't you understand? Murder is an intentional and unlawful killing by one human on another. Jesus in his capacity as God never committed unlawful killing. Gods cannot by definition commit murder any more than a dog could. It is something specific to humans. Hence if you want to declare that Jesus in his human capacity murdered, then we need to peruse the Gospels when he was alive on earth as human - to determine if in fact he killed anyone unlawfully. When you have done that - come back and tell me you did not lose.
AGAIN: JESUS SAID: "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Isiah 13:16)Within Jesus' "Judging" of His creation by taking their lives away from them, this is bad enough, especially since He is ever loving and forgiving. BUT, why was it so important for Jesus to have to take these lives away in having innocent infants dashed to pieces, and women with child ripped up with brutal abortions as He did in the Isaiah 13:16 passage?Can you address this brutal act shown above by the ever loving and forgiving Jesus?
The prophet Isaiah prophesied - you know, made a prediction about a future event in relation to Samaria. And in that prophecy - which is simply a lawsuit against Samaria - hence a lawful action - and a warning - to Samaria. Because you have committed Treason against the State, you shall die. And all of you shall be wiped out, men, woman, and infants.
God, the Trinity is the judge and king of the universe. Humanity already from the beginning have been living on death row. All condemned to death and awaiting for their execution. Their crime is treason. Forgiveness as you would know requires humanity to repent of their sins - and to apologise. If there is no repentance there is no forgiveness. If the Samarians even in their condemned state had repented of their rebellion against God, then he would have forgiven them, just like he did with Nineveh when Jonah turned up. But they did not. They just continued to mock God - and pretend it was all a joke. A bit like you really.
Even in this situation the execution of justice was lawful. Humanity broke the law. The prosecution brought it to the judge. The Judge found them guilty and sentenced them. Children form part of the community of the Samaritans. Probably the woman were saying "my body my right" - hence they refused to repent - and willingly aborted their fetuses', and even this is not unlawful is it? After all we all know fetuses' are not human. And killing fetuses is not murder. Not now and not then.
God's love was demonstrated therefore and so was his forgiveness. He showed love to the State - who wanted to see the treasonous and rebellious people judged lawfully and so for themselves to be protected and he showed forgiveness to everyone who repented. Did anyone repent? I don't know. Do you?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well you see I disagree with that view.Perhaps we had better resolve this now. When in doubt should I refer to the actual book or you when discussing the book?
Please refer to the bible. I think it is clear. The way I discuss it is the traditional way of understanding it. I have never met a Christian who thought Adam did not know it was wrong to eat the fruit. I do not know any Christian who would take that view. It does not make sense to take that view. Adam knew it was wrong to take the fruit - God told him not to take the fruit. Adam knew he would die if he took the fruit. If Adam did not know what death meant, then this command would have meant nothing. If Adam did not know it was wrong, then it makes no sense. Why would God punish him for something if he did not know it was wrong?
The tree is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now while some think this means that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil before eating of it - it simply does not make sense in the context. Knowledge / knowing in Hebrew is not used in the same way as we use it today. It is a word that means something very intimate - sometimes we talk about knowing each other in the biblical sense. That can mean having sexual intercourse. Sometimes it means others things - such as covenantal knowledge between God and Human.
Quote verses if you need to. I am confident the story holds together. But I remain convinced of the position that Adam was an Adult and not a child. I remain convinced that he did know the difference between good and evil. The tree did not stop this - or give him more knowledge in that sense. What it did do - was to open his eyes to say - this is not good. Or I don't agree with God. It is this notion that gives the basis of TREASON in the OT and why what GOD did by throwing him out of the Garden - just.
If you take the view that God simply told an immature child not to do something and then when the immature child did that - to kick him and all of his children out of the garden - then that would make God seem to be vindicate and mean or whatever.
But that is the difference in the views. One sees God as holy and just and righteous. And the other sees God as being evil and vindictive. I see the former and see it quite clearly. Others don't. Stephen for instance sees it quite differently and thereby it taints or colors everything he sees in the bible. Similarly, the way I perceive God colors everything I see.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR PLACATING QUOTE: "Covid-19 came from China. God is in control. He has a plan. And he will bring it to pass"You are absolutely correct for a change, praise! Since you biblically agree that Jesus, as the HEBREW serial killer Yahweh God incarnate, is in control of the cover-19 virus, therefore murdering many of His earthly creation, then you are as glad as I am in the fact that at least Jesus is NOT having babies dashed to pieces and women with child ripped open in performing brutal abortions this time as the book of Hosea so states! Whew, huh?JESUS SAID: "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Isiah 13:16)
My quote was recognizing three things. Covid originated in China. God is in control. And the third was there is a both a relationship and a disconnect between first and second causes. Obviously it went well over your head.
What I did not agree with was that Jesus is a serial killer. In any event we have had that discussion and you lost. I have no reason to go over it again. At least until you are able to accept you lost or provide some new information we have not discussed in order to make your point.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR REVEALING RUNAWAY QUOTE ONCE AGAIN!!!: "As for your numbers - I really don't care. I have done my studies and formed my own conclusions. I don't have to figure out every little or large inconsistency to be convinced of it either way. The only people who care about the inconsistences are those trying to run away from the truth of GOD and judgment. "What you are saying in your Satanic quote above is that "As for my numbers" you really don't care? Well, that explains a lot about your continued Biblical ignorance! In this respect, how can you logically form YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS WHEN THE MATH THAT I HAVE GIVEN IS FACT THAT GOES AGAINST ANY CONCLUSIONS WHATSOEVER THAT YOU COULD EMBARRASSINGLY BRING FORTH???! Then to make matters worse for you in front of the membership, you follow your bible stupidity up with the statement; "The only people who care about the inconsistences are those trying to run away from the truth of GOD and judgment. " HELLO, The TRUTH you state is the biblical axiom of there having to be 1.2 million species of animals on the 450 foot long, 65 foot wide Noah's Ark, BARRING ANY DINOSAURS!!!Tradesecret, why do you make it so easy for me to continually show your complete Bible ignorance and stupidity as being a pseudo-christian, and again RUNNING AWAY from biblical axioms of the Noahan Flood scenario?! Wait, you have never told the membership on what RUNNING SHOES you wear! Why is that? LOL!Damn it, we were looking forward to you turning yourself into another Satanic pretzel as you tried in vain to go against the scriptures once again in explaining away my biblical and mathematical facts relative to the Noahan Flood scenario. You missed another opportunity to make us laugh once again at your expense. :(
I am not running from you. I respond to you when I think there is a need to do so. My reason not to debate you lies with you inability to accept you are wrong even when it is obvious to everyone else. It has nothing to do with being afraid or worried about you beating me. Personally when people can show me I am wrong, it helps me - so why would I run away from it.
On the other hand, when I make a reasonable argument and it beats you - then I think it is fair that you acknowledge it. You never concede anything because you think you know everything and that everyone else is wrong. If you can't acknowledge any errors then we would not be having a debate - it would simply be two people having a pissing contest. I am not interested in doing that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
You would have wanted to snuff her life out for what you call compassion. I hate your compassion. It disgusts me. It makes me want to vomit - because it is not really compassion - it is cruel and evil and on the same level as the original rape. In fact it is probably worse - because it is being couched in words of niceness.I absolutely would not have wanted to snuff out her life! My compassion disgusts you? I would never say something like that to you. Your arguments are your own. And I respect your right to have them. I'm glad things are black and white in your world, because they aren't in mine! I struggle every day to seek the truth and to see clearly.As for your friend. I admire her for what she has been through and how she has handled it. But are you saying your friend had her rapist's baby? Because my 13 yr. old friend got pregnant as well -- by her father. She was taken away from her parents and put in foster care. She was in her first month of pregnancy. Again, I'm glad it is all so easy for you. It most certainly isn't for me. I met her long after she had her abortion, but I certainly DID NOT JUDGE her or shame her for her decision.
Let's get this straight seeing you misunderstood me. A raped B and conceived C. My friend is C. C has a wonderful relationship with B. And not only that C has now started a relationship with A. And now A and B are on talking terms and are both supporting C. I thought you were suggesting that C should be snuffed out because of your views. I found that thought repulsive and made me want to vomit. If that is not what you meant - I apologize. I was mistaken. For the record this is not a black and white world - and I dont pretend that it is. But murder is murder. And abortion is murder, except the foetuses are deemed subhuman. I call that the essence of fascism and the heart of Nazism.
Absolutely a savvy businessman. 8 bankruptcies demonstrate the truth of that. Anyone can lose money - in fact most do. Not many can regain their wealth. Real Wealth people don't love money. They can lose all of their money and not care too much about it. This is why they succeed. Because unlike socialists - they see money as a tool, not as an end in itself.Trump built an ALL GOLD penthouse and showcased it everywhere. He cares about wealth because he cares about the way he looks to others. In fact, that is all he cares about. He wants power because he keeps trying to prove to himself that he is worthwhile."See?", he says to the world. "I am rich. I am somebody". Still, he feels worthless. "See?", he says to the world again. "I am President! Surely, I am someone now?"
I don't think you understand Trump nor the wealthy at all. You seem to be coming from a very middle class -position.
So he constantly has to re-double his efforts to make sure no one can see through the cracks of his facade. He makes Wharton (University of Penn.) destroy his academic records and threatens to sue them if his grades ever get out. He refuses to turn over his taxes and fights every court ruling (and the Constitution) to keep them away from the People. Like a desperate drowning man, he is terrified they might see his fraud, both his financial facade AND his self-esteem facade.His ego becomes his driving force. And there is little room for America in this obsession. He will do absolutely anything to win --- to lose would mean his identity has been shattered. He is on a constant mission to prove to himself, via the adoration of his mobs, that he really is a "somebody".
So obviously, you believe the fake media and cannot tell the difference. Try watching complete speeches by Trump and not the cut and paste hatchet jobs.
With great respect - you do know you have just contradicted yourself? LOL! If Trump got a whole lot of money from mummy and daddy, so what? After all, even as you just said, he bankrupted himself 8 times. Saying his family has bailed him out - is not an inheritance. They are not going to bail him out - unless there is something in it for them.Um . . no contradiction. They bailed him out because he was FAMILY and they didn't want the Trump name to be besmirched. Trump was ALWAYS trying to win the approval of his father. And he failed time and time again (bankruptcies). His father paid for every blunder because he was embarrassed, not because there was anything in it for him (other than saving the Trump family name from further humiliation).
You want that to be the case - but it is not the case. The Trump Family are not that close -and if you are right about them and their greedy ways - they would not care two hoots about reputation. People either care about their greed or they care about their reputation. You can't care about both if you want either.
Socialism is a dirty word. IT is a word of hate and evil. It has never been partial because it removes and destroys the rights of the people.Again, wow! You do realize that every time Trump bails out some big conglomerate with taxpayer money --- THAT IS SOCIALISM. Every time you put on your seat-belt -- that is a form of socialism too. When the government allowed Trump to declare bankruptcy and not pay his debts, THAT WAS SOCIALISM! Building roads is socialism. Our fabulous country is beautifully capitalistic and also partially socialistic.
I never said Trump was not a socialist. He uses Keynesian economics all the time. He is an advocate of big government. But please don't mix up socialism with paying taxes. Please don't mix socialism up with law that protect human life. Capitalism and Small government advocates believe in tax and they believe in laws that protect life. The opposite of socialism is not anarchy. And Anarchy and capitalism are not the same things at all. Capitalists build roads - America is a mixed society I concede - but socialism is still an evil and a dirty word. It leads to slavery - and to the elite ruling - such as the swamp in Washington. They think they know best and that everyone else can either join them or be canceled.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Unfortunately, along with addressing my Greyhound Bus Depot Ministries upon my absence, I had to take care of my friends animals while he was in the hospital with the Covid-19 virus that Jesus, as God, had given him. You should be happy that I wasn't here for the last 9 days, where it gave you a breather and a rest regarding me easily showing you to be the number 1 biblical fool here at DEBATEART Relgion forum! Therefore, the least of which, you should thank me!!! LOL
I am sorry for your friend. It is nice you have a life from the forum. Looking after animals??? But with no internet????
Covid-19 came from China. God is in control. He has a plan. And he will bring it to pass. Hopefully, your friend will recover soon. I don't care one way or the other whether you are here or not. Honestly, your posts don't bother me - well except the lies you tell. A breather??? Brother DT - you really are the class clown.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Adam and Eve thought they could do a better job.This doesn't actually follow from the story. According to the story they had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree. They could not therefore have thought god was doing a bad job (being unaware of good and so unable to contrast the job god was doing against some hypothetical better) and indeed could not have understood their transgression. They were tricked by the serpent (not necessarily the Christian devil by the way which makes no real appearance in the old testament) and the serpent presumably was just another creation of their god.
Well you see I disagree with that view. They knew it was wrong to eat the fruit. Why would God punish them for doing anything that was not good or bad. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not about gaining knowledge of what good and evil was - it was about them deciding what was good and was evil. That is a different concept. You see this is what would make them like God - not the knowledge of good and evil which is hardly a divine character trait - but deciding what was good and evil. There is the rub. Of course they knew what their transgression was. God said don't eat from that tree. They were not stupid. yes, Eve was naive when it came to Satan. She gave in to the temptation placed before her. So I disagree with your premise and mind you - so do most Reformed folk.
I don't find it a reasonable comparison for Adam and children with guns. Adam was a fully cognizant human. He is as it were the champion of the human race. he was the best of the best. And the smartest of the smartest.I'm sorry but according to the source material this is blatantly untrue. He was unable to tell right from wrong because he had not eaten of the tree of knowledge yet. Only after eating the fruit could get be expected to understand that eating the fruit was wrong.
Sorry - but the information is that Adam knew it was wrong to eat the fruit which seriously contradicts your statement. The fruit was not giving him new knowledge - it was giving him the capacity to determine what was good or evil. Think about this for a moment. Prior to the eating of the fruit - God says everything is good - including Adam and Eve being naked. Now if for the sake of the argument Adam and Eve did not know what right and wrong was - then after they ate the fruit - they did, then what God had called good, including being naked - would now make sense to them. After all, according to your view, they did not know but after eating the fruit they did know. So - why then do they become concerned because of their nakedness? Why then do they now think it is wrong - despite it being good prior to their eyes being opened? Two conclusions really, one that good and evil are objective laws that even God has to abide by or that God in his capacity as God determines what was good and bad for everyone - but now Adam and Eve think they know better and decide that nakedness is not good. After all, if your argument is that "now their eyes were opened" they knew what was good and bad - then they should have known that what was good - such as being naked was still good. Yet the story shows a different picture.
Freedom without boundaries is not freedom. Freedom without boundaries is just another form of slavery.Firstly I m not sure that holds true. Freedom and boundaries are two different issues. When we set boundaries for our children it is not to contrast with their freedom or to provide them with choice but instead more generally it is to protect them from dangerous situations. Also the old testament god didn't seem to have a problem with slavery so I don't see why he would have a problem with Adam being his slave. In fact the relationship is not entirely different. Adam, according to genesis, was a being belonging to god for whom tasks were laid out.
I was not arguing against Slavery. I was making the point of the definition of true freedom. If we don't have boundaries - then our freedom becomes meaningless. The rest of your paragraph drifts into irrelevancy. My point was to provide a reason for the tree in the garden. It has many purposes - but one was to recognize they were reliant upon someone else, namely God. And that God made the rules and that they were accountable to him. Ironically enough there was only one rule.
I don't have an issue with hypotheticals. And even thought experiments. Yet to be honest - a hypothetical situation is unhelpful as a tool to change someone's mind when as part of the hypothetical situation I have to actually stop believing things that I hold to be relevant. It then only becomes a thought bubble for someone else. It provides me with no particular assistance in any instance. Yet, the OP made an assertion and asked for comment. I do not think that I have been discourteous. I have explained my position and as to how far I can extend the discussion within the parametres of my own understanding.Well stated. I accept your position on this.
Thank you.
I think there is a subconscious manner to distinguish the two. We can like Jesus - but Jehovah, no he is quite distinct.Yet - I think this is two faced.Yet that is my opinion.Seems a bit dissonant. Can we distinguish the two or not? Either we can and discussion of only the ot god is possible or we cannot. I accepted your stance above but this is a bit of a departure from that stance.
I don't think so. Jesus and the OT GOD are the same and yet they are not. The Christian position is that God is Trinity - yet Jesus was both God and Man. Yet Jesus is not the Trinity, but forms part of the Trinity. Hence - their character is the same - yet GOD is not MAN. I cannot in other words simply divorce the Trinity from Jesus - but nor can I posit that Jesus equals the Trinity. Hence we cannot distinguish the two. It is not as simplistic as are putting. God is not simplistic.
Wow! that is a steep call. Parents who love their parents unconditionally do not exist. I have never met one. Have you? I love my children even when they stuff up badly. But this is far different to saying I love them unconditionally. I have never seen a parent stand by their child when their child is beating up someone and say - great they deserved it. And continued to do so even at a court hearing. Generally by that time - the parent has come to realise that their child has done something wrong. And they dont agree with it. Do they love their child then? Of course - well perhaps. But it is not unconditional.You seem to be flip flopping a lot on issues. Doesn't unconditional mean no matter what? Does love require supporting the action of the loved one? Indeed if the parent still loves the child even when they disapprove of the action the child has taken I would call that indicative of unconditional love. It may be hard to determine as outside observers but that doesn't alter definitions.
I would have thought it meant without conditions. Does love require supporting their actions? I would say no, yet many advocates of unconditional love would say yes. In fact one might suggest that love requires discipline and even punishment when required. And sometimes this love for the person you punish is going to be weighed against the crime and equity for others you love as well. But does my love diminish for the person I punish or discipline?
Parents who never discipline their children - which is what you seem to be advocating - are teaching their children to do whatever they want - i think that is reckless and negligent.I am not advocating for anything and I agree with this assessment. It would also seem reckless and negligent to leave children in dangerous situations or to leave dangerous objects where children could stumble upon them.
I agree. Yet if the children were adults - and were given warning - over and over again - then would it be negligent or reckless to leave them there?
Respectfully can you put your last sentence in another form. It does not make sense to me. thanks.Certainly. I am addressing the problem of suffering. I seem to notice that on earth the guilty often escape justice while the innocent often suffer sometimes horribly. Indeed going back to the source material Job is supposedly a righteous man on whom all manner of misfortunes were visited for the purposes of a wager. As an unbeliever this would appear to me to be an attempt by the authors of the story to explain away the problem of suffering but in the end just colors the proposed god in rather an unflattering light. These are not the actions of a loving parent but rather a capricious and neglectful abuser.
Firstly, it was not a wager. It was a lesson for sure - to both Satan, and to us as humanity watching. It was to warn people that the cultural view of the time that wealth and blessing were signs of blessing from God and sickness and poverty was a sing of his disfavor was wrong. It was to provide wisdom that GOD makes the rules and not Satan. And furthermore that GOD is not accountable to anyone but himself. Job came to realise this truth. His faith was deeper than the wealth he had accumulated. I dont see the story like you do. In fact there are indicators in the story that even though Satan wanted to go further GOD Stopped him - and made the limits. And in any event with the greatest respect - the story is not trying to give a why to suffering - it is not trying to explain away suffering. It is saying that suffering exists - and that it is painful and that it hurts and that when you suffer - it is never going to be easy. I think that the story is a picture of the reality of suffering. That God chose to use it as a means of dispelling false theories is a matter for himself. Without this story - many well meaning religious people might well continue on believing the lie that suffering only happens to sinners.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I am not going to spin anything. Someone asked me how I thought all the animals could fit into the ark. I said I don't know. That is my answer. I dont know and to be honest it is not a question that actually worries me. I also indicated that the size of the ark if it was built to the specifications in the bible is pretty big. I don't resile from that position. I also said that there was no law that said that the animals had to be full size adults. Hence if they were infants it would enable a significant larger amount than adult sized children. I also indicated that this would logically mean there would be less food to be gathered.
As for your numbers - I really don't care. I have done my studies and formed my own conclusions. I don't have to figure out every little or large inconsistency to be convinced of it either way. The only people who care about the inconsistences are those trying to run away from the truth of GOD and judgment.
I mean if you were consistent - which clearly you are not - you would throw away science because it is inconsistent and it actually creates more problems than it solves - yet I don't see anyone saying - "gee that does not make sense - let's throw it away" no - they do what anybody who does not know does - they wait until more information arises and in the case of science - they will wait for ever and ever and ever - because they don't have any alternatives.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It is not clutching at straws. Sin does make you stupid. You don't have to agree with me - I could care less. But it is not clutching at straws. Sin has tainted almost every aspect of our lives - we live in it, we sleep in it. we eat in it. And we die in it.
Sin is the most pervasive problem in our society - and most people are so seduced by it that they can't even recognize it. Sin blinds us the reality of its existence as such a pervasive thing.
It is however the problem Jesus came to deal with because it was humanity's biggest issue. That is the point. To say it is clutching at straws PROVES without a shadow of the doubt that you have no idea about Christianity and it certainly PROVES that any so called reading of the bible by you is itself tainted by sin.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What part of my statement herein didn't you understand?: "You have danced around for so long, and knowing that I am leaving on a trip forthwith, we have lost valuable time in your hiding from the inevitable! "This is because I only have about 3 days or so to show your continued biblical ignorance at your expense, because of a planed trip, okay? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557-what-is-your-favorite-argument-for-the-existence-of-god?page=9&post_number=204
Oh - are you making an excuse for your running away? Did you leave the planet? No internet - yeah right. You still had your phone. You could have responded - you are just making excuses to weezel out of your "running away".
Listen, you have enough problems with your outright Devil Speak and RUNAWAY status in this forum, therefore don't apply notions of you being a "kid" as well which only makes your presence here more embarrassing!
WTF!
YOUR LAUGABLE AND IGNORANT QUOTE: "And for the record, until you stop hiding behind the façade you pretend to be - Brother D Thomas - whoever you are - despite the links and proofs others have provided - and put your real name down, and your real religion - which is atheism down - then I won't even consider putting my down."We can see that me being a TRUE Christian is still a stumbling block for you, where you actually think that no Christian can act like me, whereas, the TRUE Christian has to act like me if they read ALL OF the Bible, while I make you the continued Bible fool that you are! LOL
More avoidance. But I suppose that makes sense when you don't want to address the truth or questions posed. I don't need to tell you my denomination just like you don't have to reveal who you are. And since you are just a facade, then it is pointless me providing you anything but one as well. Except I don't tell lies. And I think that any real christian would easily be able to determine my denomination by my words - or if they asked some simple questions - then they might be able to narrow it down by deduction.
Hey Tradie, do you pray to Mary? No. Hey Tradie, do you believe in bishops? No. Hey Tradie, are you an arminian? No. Hey Tradie, do you believe in infant baptism? Yes. Hey Tradie, do you use a confession? Yes. Hey Tradie, do you worship on a sunday? Yes. Hey Tradie, do you speak in tongues? No. Hey Tradie, I reckon I can guess which denomination you are. Cool. But can the Brother DT?
Created: