Total posts: 3,520
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I leave on a trip for 9 days to address my Greyhound Bus Depot Ministries, and I come back to this forum, and you are still as dumbfounded of Christianity than when I left!
Says you. If it is the case, you must have been relieved. Yet, we all know that the internet is everywhere - even on so called breaks.
“Perhaps you might answer?” Since when it is considered at all to tell others of the division of your faith? Barring that your biography is totally ZERO in content, absolutely ZERO, which only shows that you are ashamed by Christianity, you are obviously to embarrassed to tell the membership in what division of Christianity you follow! LOL!!! Can you slap Jesus in the face any harder?! We can only wonder in what Jesus thinks of you being so embarrassed about His faith, that you have to run and hide once again in not telling us the division of the faith that you follow! I ask you a very simple question, WWJD?
I looked at your biography and it is totally zero of any truth. It contains nothing of any value. As I said before anyone who is a real christian can tell what my denomination is just from the things I write. It is not hard. Quite simple really. Yet for you it is frustrating because you cannot pick it. Why don't you ask the other real Christians on this site if they know what my denomination is? Show your ignorance. LOL! Jesus knows my religion and my denomination. In fact one of his congregations has called me to be their minister. Surely if Jesus is worried about me - he could have discussed this with one of the elders. But lo - Jesus did not do this. Why? Because there is no issue. LOL!
Tradesecret, you are NOT a Christian, but a pseudo-christian at best, where I have easily made you the continued Bible fool!RUN TRADESECRET, RUN FROM DEBATE RELATIVE TO JESUS’ TRUE MODUS OPERANDI, HURRY, RUN, THE MEMBERSHIP CONTINUES TO WATCH YOU RUN! LOL!
LOL! @ you. Say what you like, I don't care. If it makes you sleep at night - go for it. It really is no skin of my nose. It simply confirms my views of Atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The idea to my understanding is that since fallible men wrote the Bible, it can't ultimately be the divine message from God. If someone doesn't believe God exists, I'm not sure what significance that would have anyway.
I am not sure what your point is here. My view is that the bible is written by fallible men but that it is also breathed out by an infallible God. Like Jesus - it is both divine and human. The infallible God used fallible men to write his word to us - using their fallible tools and minds but nevertheless speaking the mind and word of God.
Hence the bible is both infallible and inerrant. It is divine and totally perfect. It is its own measuring tool - making it inerrant.
Created:
-->
@linate
what are your views of the noah story as posed in this thread? i ask cause you seem like a smart, learned christian,
Firstly, I don't present as particularly smart or learned. Secondly, I don't have answers for all of the questions asked. Mind you, that does not mean that the answers won't present themselves in the future. After all, no scientist would suggest that know everything already. I simply ask for the same curtesy.
so i'm curious. just because the bible says so, and God can do anything?
God can do anything he wants to do. There is nothing that he wants to do that he can't do. However, he won't perform for people just for the sake of it. His ego does not require proving himself to you or to me.
when miracles occur, i believe there is evidence for it.
What do you mean by that comment? If a blind man suddenly can see - the evidence is in the seeing. But mostly skeptics would simply deny the person was blind. Hence they don't care about the evidence.
with the story of noah, it's not just the lack of evidence, but evidence exists that actively discredits the story.
Actually you are simply making assertions not making an argument or producing evidence.
if the story of noah occurred within recent history or thousands of years, how are there so many cultures who look like they evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, when supposedly they were all wiped out recently?
How do we know how cultures have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years? Especially how do we determine how and what they looked like? The Story of Noah is not inconsistent with cultures evolving. It simply says that God wiped out the earth save and except for 8 people. Even the modern day evolutionist suggests that humanity evolved from one set of parents.
how did all the fresh water fish and life survive when all the water combined with the ocean?
Yes, I saw this argument against the flood in a book by Ian Plimer. It is the same book which has a disgraced governor general write the preface. I don't have an answer to the question. Mind you - the argument presupposes much within its premises. It certainly has never been tested.
how did kangaroos and island animals get to the ark?
This question forgets that the world divided and used to be one island. The question is when did the world divide? Evolutionists insist millions of years ago. The bible says it occurred after the flood. Infact Peleg is named after the dividing.
why isn't there any fossils of the mass casualties of life on earth?
Well many would suggest that the many huge oil fields around the world are potentially the result of such mass casualities.
why wasn't there any imbreeding with only one of each animal?
Gee who knows? What about the human situation. Evolutionists believe humans come from one set of parents. Inbreeding ????
how did they fit so many animals on one boat?
If the ark was the size it claims to be - it was pretty big. And if the animals on the ark - were infants or babies - then their size would increase the available size. Obviously a baby elephant is going to take up much less room than an adult elephant and eat much less as well. The same applies across all the species. Some people - have produced examples of how all the animals could fit in the ark. Of course this does not include fish - perhaps there was enough room for the all the fresh water fish - in tanks. Who knows I was not there.
is it all just because the bible says it, and God can do anything, that we should take it as true? the new testament does talk about noah as if it was a literal story, so at least if you believe the bible is the word of God, you can't just say the story was a metaphor.
I think we do need to read the bible in the language it was meant to be understood. I am not talking about Hebrew - but the genre. I take the view that the bible tends to use the language of appearance - and that it DOES NOT use scientific language. It is not a science textbook. God can do anything he wants to do. There is nothing he cannot do that he wants to do. This does not mean he can do absurd things like make a rock so big he cannot lift it. That is not only an absurdity but he has no desire to make one either. I don't think it is a metaphor. But nor do I think that we necessarily read it properly through our modern eyes. The picture is one of God's judgment on the world for wickedness. That is the main message I get from it. And the fact that God chose to save one family through an ark which is a picture for Jesus. God saves his people. God judges wicked. God makes a covenant and keeps his promises.
i believe when miracles occur, there is evidence for them. it's understandable when a christian doesn't think much about these things and takes the story as true. but for those who have studied or should know better, it stands as contemptable the disdain for truth that those literalist christians have.
I think your last sentence is written by someone who has distain for knowledge and education. I am not a literalist Christian. I think parts of the bible are literal and some parts are not. Yet, it is not an act of foolishness nor stupidity to take the word of God over the word of an education system which is tainted by sin. Sin is what makes people stupid - not reading and believing GOD's word.
I think what your real problem is that you have been educated somewhat and come to your own conclusions - and are so arrogant that you think that everyone should believe the same as you. It never occurs to you that many people are educated in humanism and then after years of study they come to the conclusion that the bible is right and humanism is wrong. In fact if you heard that - you would make assumptions - such as they omitted to look at the evidence or were brainwashed or deceived. You see - the evidence is there - but skeptics refuse to believe the miracle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Inerrancy is easy to prove. And to disprove. Just go and find me a measuring tool that measures inerrancy?
Created:
-->
@linate
@n8nrgmi
Hi I have not answered this yet. In fact I did not even remember it being here. Presently, I am working on a pressing matter, but hopefully this evening I can address it more fully.
Thanks for reminding me of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
That is a great thought. Fallible men wrote the bible. I totally agree.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Parents who love their children unconditionally do not exist. And if they did - their children would be monsters - probably living in prison or juvie.This is an extremely poor argument as some humans are monsters and though mentions of hell are somewhat lacking in the ot you would be hard put without changing your stance on god's need to punish sinners to claim that none do end up in juvie (or rather eternal torment and damnation).To be clear the old testament says the wages of sin are death not eternal damnation but that is a separate discussion.In any case the discipline of which you speak is difficult to distinguish from no action being taken for or against transgressors from the perspective of a human on earth who can observe good things happening to the guilty and bad things happening to the innocent at a rate that seems indistinguishable from random happenstance.
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. 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. And many of these type of kids do end up in prison and juvi. I am a criminal lawyer for kids. I see a lot of this everyday and am speaking not from ideology but experience.
The OT teaches that treason is eternal damnation. It does not simply talk of death. But covenantal death. Adam was not born immortal. He was going to die as a part of normal life. His test which he failed could have given him eternal life - but he chose death. Covenantal death- kicked out of the family - for TREASON.
Respectfully can you put your last sentence in another form. It does not make sense to me. thanks.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
After Adam sinned, God provided clothing and atonement for his sin,I suppose but why make a system of sin and punishment in the first place? Couldn't have this hypothetical god have created any world governed by any rules including scenarios beyond our ability to imagine? Why not just make a garden with no tree of knowledge? Isn't it better (read more effective) to keep guns out of reach of children than it is to admonish them not to touch? You will forgive me if the love you are attributing to this god seems indistinguishable from neglect and abuse to me. I do invite you to show some practical difference but if it is merely beyond our ability to fairly assess then it is by default impossible to make the determination whether said god feels any love or not.
Tis true that a hypothetical god could have done anything he liked. Yet the God of the Bible did what he did. Adam and Eve thought they could do a better job. And I suspect that all of us think we could do so as well. I think that is the heart of Treason. Why did he make a system of sin and punishment? Well I suppose you could ask him one day and hopefully it won't matter when you do. I take the view that God had a reason for these things. The tree of knowledge was essentially a test of probation. It also provided an opportunity to learn about life - in the sense of limitations. 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. His was a simple choice - not a situation of keeping children away from dangerous items. That notion is too simplistic and an insult to the writer of the book. To suggest that God is neglectful and abusive is really a naive thing to suggest.
As I said - Adam was the perfect human being. God called him Good. He was brilliant. The highest point of humanity. The champion of the race. Untainted by sin. By Greed or by anything else. This was the world God made and put man into. God gave him all he needed and God provided for him. If God had not given him boundaries then he would not have experienced freedom. This is why the tree existed. Freedom without boundaries is not freedom. Freedom without boundaries is just another form of slavery. If anyone in the history of the universe was going to be able to be our representative - our champion it was going to be Adam. No one else has come close. Not Abraham, Not Noah, Not Moses, Not David. Adam - whose name means Human - was the one. Created first - by the hands of God himself.
He was not some sort of child, or naive or simple. God had educated him from the beginning. He knew good from evil. He recognized he needed a mate. He knew the difference between animals and humans. To say that God put a gun near a child just exposes the fact that you really don't understand this passage. He was the first perfect person ever made and he was amazing in every way.
I am not going to commence with a notion I don't agree with in order to make my point.So are you unwilling or unable to entertain hypotheticals and thought experiments? If I were unable to entertain hypothetical scenarios I don't actually believe in I wouldn't even have the ability to have this discussion with you. Is there some rational reason not to extend the author of the op the same courtesy?
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.
I find the notion that the OT God is somehow different to the NT one as difficult to maintain. Both are clearly just and holy. Both express love similarly and both express judgement similarly. To divorce the two only then serves the person who does not want to have the wisdom as expressed through Jesus. 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sorry Stephen, I don't take your explanation as gospel.What's new.
Do you seriously expect me to take your word as gospel? Why should I? You have no authority. Your opinion is not one of an expert. I don't expect you to believe me - even though I am qualified professionally to give advice. This is a forum. Forums require evidence and argument not just assertions of an opinion. You have refused to provide any sources for your "opinion". So why should anyone take your opinion as gospel? Surely you are not surprised!!
I never said God made the world in six days.But your bible does? And according to you >>
But the point is - I never did. And I said I would provide evidence for what I say. Not just what the bible says or what you think the bible says.
The bible is God's word.
Yes. The bible itself calls itself the Word of God. Psalm 119 is a wonderful example of this. I am not attempting to prove it the Word of God. Just providing evidence that it is the word of God. On the other hand, once I have provided it, you can cross examine my assertion and evidence. That is what the forum is for. Assertion, evidence, argument and examination of the same. Not just assertion and denial of any evidence as though it is not evidence. If you would learn how to read, perhaps you might understand how to discuss and reason. For example, suggesting that the above verse was simply a emotional response to a grieving father is partially a response - but not a full one. I would have tried to articulate that David was suggesting "I wish I had never been born". Hence - the very reason I am alive is because of someone's mistake. At least you could have filled it out. I don't particularly think that is a strong argument - but it better than simply making an assertion and expecting anyone else to understand what you - can obviously see.
I assume you mean 24 hours daysAnd this is where you rewrite the bible and tell us that the bible doesn't mean days when it says "days", without providing the evidence that you proudly brag to "always produce" , when you never do
Did you even notice the way you responded here? Not only did I never say God made the world in six days, I picked up your position that you implied I was going to say 24 hours days? Far out. I was helping you out - and yet you have the audacity to turn that around and say I am going to argue it means something it does not mean. Well Stephen, given that you don't have anything more to go on than a feeling, that means nothing to me. I do produce evidence. I always do. It is just that you think evidence means proof - which is not what I mean. I suppose I could use the word data but it means the same anyway. Evidence does not mean proof - it never has and it never will. All evidence has to be examined and weighted. Does it support a particular position or not? People in the main - misunderstand what evidence is. When they mistake it for proof they demonstrate a profound ignorance. Don't make the same mistake.
I did not mention creation and particular days - because this topic is about least favourite stories - and I like the Genesis story.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
We know that God loves the world.Assuming some god(s) exist I don't actually know this about him.
I take the view that the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. Are you asking me to only half believe in order to answer you fully? How quaint?
Nevertheless, I accept you believe you don't know God exists. Yet I can only speak to the view that I do believe. And that it is my view as well as many others that God not only exists, but that he loves us.
clearly this love is pictured as God sending his son to this world for the welfare of the world.Actually the old testament (the only te t presumed by the op) makes no mention of this event so it is largely besides the point.
Well yes I suppose that is the position of the OP. Yet, again I am not going to commence with a notion I don't agree with in order to make my point. I do not think we can divorce the OT from the NT GOD. In my understanding they are one and the same. Anything that can be said about GOD in the Old can be said about God in the New. Yet because we are focusing on the Old, love can be demonstrated in the creation. God made the earth and placed humanity in it - providing for his wellbeing. After Adam sinned, God provided clothing and atonement for his sin, again showing concern for his wellbeing.
The dilemma arises however because of fact that God also judges and sentences people to die and even according to some to eternal damnation in Hellfire. How is that consistent with love?"Why do you make me hit you" and "this hurts me more than it hurts you"These are stances are more often indicative of an abuser than a loving parent. Can you show the difference between the behavior of the god depicted in the old testament and the behavior of a neglectful and capriciously violent parent?
I was not talking about smacking. I was talking about discipline. Discipline is a means. Punishment is an end. Putting someone on a naughty chair. Taking away someone's ipad. Grounding someone. Not giving them their allowance. Not letting them go to the movies. All of these are forms of discipline. Each could be seen as child abuse by someone. For the record, I don't have an issue with smacking, so far as it is not abusive, leaves marks, and is confined to the hand or the bottom. No legs, no head, no other part of the body. Neither does any court I have attended either. I also don't take the view that smacking leads to assault or violence, anymore than does imprisoning someone leads to others committing violent acts or fining someone teaches people to steal.
I think there is a difference between guilt manipulation and discipline. If you are guilty, that is good. It is good to be guilty for doing the wrong thing. But making someone guilty for the sake of it - guilt manipulation is wrong.
In the OT God ALWAYS lawfully acts in justice. There are no occasions when he acts or requests unlawful killings or injustice against others. Sometimes his representatives do the wrong thing. And generally they get punished themselves. God from the beginning never just made a command. He always provided reasons for his commands and he always provided a sanction if the people did not obey. This is his prerogative as GOD. If people did not sin, there would be no need for judgment. If people did not commit treason - then humanity would not be living in a rebellious state of war against God.
This is why I can still say that God loves us. Despite our hatred and treason against him, he still managed to show love and concern for many people in this world. Was it necessary to save everyone? That is another question.
This is why I find the notion of unconditional love so unhelpful. Parents who love their children unconditionally do not exist. And if they did - their children would be monsters - probably living in prison or juvie.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
So your argument if I understand it correctly is that we cannot presume to understand what would constitute an indication of love in the context of the god proposed in the old testament. In that case how can we in fact determine whether or not such love is in evidence?
Not at all. I am certainly not suggesting that love cannot be indicated by a genuine concern for someone else's welfare, only that the love we show towards God is not of that nature. And given that circumstance, is it fair to presume that His love must thereby be measured or understood in the way we love as opposed to the way he declares it so.
We know that God loves the world. Yes he told us so. And clearly this love is pictured as God sending his son to this world for the welfare of the world. A picture of self sacrifice is one picture of love described in the bible. In fact his love for the world while they were still his enemies is a mighty picture. There was no particularly just reason for him to do so. It is entirely an act of grace (incidentally, one of the numerous words interpreted from Greek into English love, namely, eros, charis, agape, philos and -----).
The dilemma arises however because of fact that God also judges and sentences people to die and even according to some to eternal damnation in Hellfire. How is that consistent with love? I asked what is love? At least you provided a definition of sorts. Thanks again.
Yet like you also raised, is it possible for some one to love and to discipline their children at the same time? Some might say no. Yet I would say that a parent who never disciplines their child is an abuser. God is not just a God of love - he is a just God. If God did not bring judgment on some, then in my mind he would be a liar. If he is going to lie about those things, why would I trust him to keep his promises. I don't like the fact that people are sentenced, yet it is demonstrates his intention of honesty and integrity.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
@n8nrgmi
If I may suggest a non nebulous standard would you both accept that a good indicator of love between thinking agents is apparently genuine concern for the wellbeing of the loved one?
Thanks for the suggestion secularmerlin, it may provide a deadlock here. I do not know.
It does not define love - but provides an indicator of how humans might love each other if they demonstrate a genuine concern for the other's wellbeing. I might be able to work with this - although with respect it makes no sense at all of the love that I have for God. I have no genuine concern for the wellbeing of God. In fact I am unable even to begin to fathom love in that sense with God. I do not care about God's feelings. Or about his emotions. I have no concern for his wellbeing. He is not going to get depressed. Nor will he be hungry or thirsty or have no shelter or be unloved.
When we talk about love for God it is clearly not in the same sense of how we talk about God's love for us. I wonder why that is? If love is a genuine concern for another's wellbeing, then it is impossible to love God. That makes no sense. What concern could we possibly have for God? He is perfect. He is not lonely.
I do care about the promises of God. And his character. And his desires for humanity. But this is not because of my concern for his wellbeing - but for my own and for those I care about. I suppose I do care about his reputation - not that I worry it will be damaged by him, but rather by the misrepresentation of humans. And I care about this not for his sake, but again because I desire that people obtain the right and proper understanding of God.
This is a fascinating question and consideration of the notion of love. If our love for God is not based on our concern for his wellbeing, then is it fair to put our human understanding of love onto him? When he calls us to love him, he is clearly not asking us to care for his wellbeing. So when we consider how he loves us - is it fair to say it must be based upon his concern for our welfare, or is it possible that his love for us is to be understood differently? And if so, why? And who determines the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Ok. Not sure what to do with this one.
The passage does not mention Jesus. Nor Christ. It does mention the Lord, Moses, the priest and a whole of other things.
It also mentions atonement. And a memorial.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
do you believe in eternal hell flame? i might be able to understand 'putting sinner's out of their misery' but still loving them or something like that, but is it possible to torture people for eternity while still loving them? does God unconditionally love the people that he's physically torturing for eternity?and to be clear, according to your idea of unconditional love, you think that God does unconditionally love the people he sends to hell?
LOL! How can I answer that question before you properly define what love is?
BTW I have not said whether I agree with unconditional love or not. I don't actually know what you are asking.
It is impossible to answer your question properly until you define the meaning of love.
WRT to Hell, let us get to that soon. I find it a fascinating subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
They like Trump because they know what they are getting. Trump has many problems - so we are told by the media and the Democrats and by the swamp. He is a businessman not a politician. But he is a very savvy businessman.The swamp? Trump has had more aides and friends put in jail than any president in history. He didn't drain the swamp, he made it bigger!Savvy businessman? He had 8 bankruptcies!
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.
The swamp is not just a number of people - it is the political system. A system where politician look after themselves and help the people only when it serves them.
So a businessman has an incentive to be honest and to make others wealthy.Politicians are typically terrible businessmen. Politicians who have money - tend to have money from inheritance - left over from mummy and daddy. Their only interest is in trying to win votes so that they can stay in power. Trump - is not interested in votes.Money from inheritance? Are you kidding? The only who got money from "mummy and daddy" is Trump. They bailed him out of all of his bad business deals.Not interested in votes? Doesn't care about staying in power? OMG! That is ALL HE CARES ABOUT. He has already said he thinks he should be President for Life!
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.
Saying he is not interested in votes is true. Staying in power? LOL! You do realise that Trump does not need to be president to have power? In many ways being president has reduced his power. He actually does care about America - president for life. That would at least keep the politicians out of the house. And that actually might save America. America has been freed from the stranglehold of political corruption. But they have not stopped fighting. They have too much invested to let it go - they will continue with their false narrative. Yet thankfully, the people of America are waking up to the lies of the Democrats and the others in the Swamp. I think he should be president for life.
Christians tend to vote for Trump because is Republican. Republican traditionally are conservative.I think you are absolutely right here about Christians.But big government doesn't have to be like communism. Government should always be only part socialistic. Law and order is where this comes in the most. But there is also the building of roads, foreign affairs and the military. And for the things you cannot vote for (euthanasia, abortion, socialism), you have to include a little compassion in your worldview. Long-term physical agony is a hard thing to endure, especially when you are all alone in the world. Socialism is not a dirty word when it is partial and debated frequently among the People of the USA. And young girls are raped and molested all the time, even impregnated by their fathers. Again, compassion.
Big Governments are pretty much like communist states. They should not be socialistic at all. Law and Order works very well in small government societies. Building of roads, military, and protection of the nation are things that small governments can do and do well. They are not exclusive to big government notions. Big governments tend to make their citizens slaves - unthinking slaves. Slaves who don't even know they are slaves.
As for compassion - what would you know? It is not compassion to murder the most vulnerable in our society, just because you call it subhuman. That is the essence of racism and bigotry and fascism. When we kill humans - abortions and euthanasia - we are murdering people. Calling it a foetus is just like saying a black person is subhuman - just like Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley did. Go and read their books. Compassion is about preserving life and dignity. It is not destroying life. Compassion? You have no idea.
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. One of my best friends is the conception of a rape. She is a beautiful girl who has a wonderful relationship with her mother. She spends her life talking about helping people not to have abortions. She went and met her father who was in prison - for raping other people. He is out now that he has paid for his crimes. And she talks to him and they have a good relationship as well. He supports her as does her mother - her mother and father have met and despite the emotion of that situation - they now support their daughter and are so thankful that they did not listen to the advice they had received from their counselor at the time. 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.
For the record, I take the view that there are reasons for abortion. Self preservation - self defence. And similarly for euthanasia
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
loving without conditions. did God love the world when he killed everyone but noah and his family? did he love them but deem it proper for them to all perish? what do you think unconditional love is, and does God do that in the old testament?
With great respect, your explanation is not yet helpful enough for me to respond. What is love? Is love confined only to positive things? Is it a process? Is it an outcome? For example, when I discipline my children, they don't perceive it as love. Yet if I chose not to discipline them, then I have not displayed love. Similarly, God loved the world, so he sent his son to be killed. Is that love for the world or not? And was it love towards his own son or not?
To talk about conditions - we need to know what love is. Are we talking about love in a hollywood, type fuzzy wuzzy type of emotional response or something else? Is it an action?
Without such answers to my questions - then I would simply respond that God's love for the world was TRULY demonstrated in saving Noah and destroying the rest of the world.
The Bible defines love as obeying God's commandments. We love God by obeying his commandments and we love others by obeying God's commandments. If this is the case - what would be the conditions that change or remain the same.
Is unconditional love - love without qualifications. Such as I love my children whether they kill someone or not. And what does love mean in that situation? Are we talking about loyalty. Standing beside them as they kill someone, being pleased for them as they kill someone else. Does it mean not preventing them from doing it? Does it mean condoning what they are doing? Or is that abuse?
You need to define love. And you need to define what conditions go with that. Sorry to be a bother - but otherwise - the original post just seems like a leading question: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
What is unconditional love?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
Okay, I'm new. I'm not just new to this forum, but to this entire website. In fact, I haven't been on an online forum for over 10 years. So bear with me.I'm not trying to be rude or combative; I just really want to know. I've heard the abortion argument. But that is more of a republican argument. I'm not asking why religious evangelicals support republicans. I want to know why religiously-moral people support Trump specifically. He has led a very immoral life. There are the numerous sex scandals, the Trump charity that was shut down because of fraud (and the money he had to repay to a real charity of the court's choosing), the Trump university fiasco, his tax evasion, his Obama birther-ism hoax, etc., just to name a VERY FEW. He also nicknames people based on the characteristics they most wish they could change about themselves, such as their weight the shape of their face (horse-face), their age, whether or not they stutter or are mentally disabled, etc . . .I know I will probably be slammed for this post and this topic. But be gentle. I am VERY NEW. I honestly just don't get why religiously-moral people like Trump.
They like Trump because they know what they are getting. Trump has many problems - so we are told by the media and the Democrats and by the swamp. He is a businessman not a politician. But he is a very savvy businessman.
Politicians in general are conniving and dishonest. Businessmen in general actually tend to be honest. Even Trump. (yeah I know that sounds wrong) but the fact is - if businessmen are dishonest - they might win one or two deals, but then never get into another business contract with anyone worthwhile. That is the nature of business. And businessmen know it is much easier to get money out of a rich man than a poor broken man. Even lawyers know - that when you look around to sue someone - you look for the deepest pockets. You don't look for the poor person - they are straw people - people with no money. So a businessman has an incentive to be honest and to make others wealthy.
Politicians are typically terrible businessmen. Politicians who have money - tend to have money from inheritance - left over from mummy and daddy. Their only interest is in trying to win votes so that they can stay in power. Trump - is not interested in votes. Yeah he wants to win - but that is not the only thing on his mind. He wants to make America Great - because he knows that the greater it is - the more money it makes - and the more money he makes.
Christians tend to vote for Trump because is Republican. Republican traditionally are conservative. In the old days that meant along economic lines of freedom and liberty. The Democrats were socialist and high taxing. Nowadays - economics is not the main plank of the Democrats - now they are socially progressive (regressive) in favor of everything the Christians are against. The Republicans might not be far behind them in these things - but still far enough that they would prefer even less to vote for the Democrats. I could never vote for a party that agrees with abortion. I could never vote for a party that agrees with euthanasia. I could never vote for a party has lied from its inception and has socialism at its heart.
Big government is a bad idea and it is divisive and unjust. The republican party has become a proponent of big government and it really is not far behind the Democrats. Yet if I had to vote I would always start with the people I dislike the most - and that would be the Democrats and work forward to see who is left on the ticket.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do need to have a level playing field?Would you prefer to participate in a sport where the dominant teams made the rules of the game and could change the rules of the game to their advantage on a whim?Or, would you prefer to participate in a sport where everyone played by the same rules and all participants had a realistic chance of "winning"?
I prefer not to think of life as a sport. As it is someone has to make the rules. And most likely it will be the ones who are dominant. And we all know that there are always going to be dominant people or organisations. Those who have an unusually loud voice even when a minority in the community. So what?
The point is - we need to have equality before the law. Same law for EVERYONE. When we start changing the law to make things more equal - it actually causes a greater division and more injustice in the community.
I don't think life is about winning. Life is not a game. It is not a sport. If we were to use a sports illustration - which sport would you propose life is like? Chess - where every piece has the same skill level? Gridiron where every individual is the quarterback. Soccer where every person is the goalkeeper? What sort of game would that be? I suspect it would be very boring and not much fun.
The progressive movement wants everyone to be the quarterback. Everyone the star. Yet anyone who knows about games - realises that the quarterback is only as good as the rest of the team. In any event, I don't desire to be the same as everyone else. I simply want the same laws to apply equally to all. I find the level playing field a nonsensical progressive - (regressive) fantasy land where in reality only the elite get rich and everyone else just has to suck it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The verse above is evidence for the proposition.Well as much you want it to be evidence it isn't. I have explained that psalm 51 is simply the outpouring of man feeling guilt. What it isn't, is the evidence I asked for showing the lord god almighty himself condemning all children to death for sin.
Sorry Stephen, I don't take your explanation as gospel. You are making it up. It is not simply an outpouring of his grief. That is a ridiculous way to attempt to argue a point. It is the theology of a person at the time that the religious leaders of Israel purported to be the king of Israel. And it is very likely it was the theological position of most of the nation following the king. Just because you say something does not make it true. You are not GOD. You don't get to decide what it says or does not say. At least produce some authority to support your position - even one would give something. What is even more telling about you is the fact that you don't even think David did write this - so to say it is about grief really is stretching the truth. You don't really know the background of the Psalm.
It is evidence for the proposition. It is strong evidence. You discounting only means you refuse to accept it. Yet others accept it and I do as well. As I said - and which you refuse to do is put up is - any verse which refutes what this verse actually posits. You don't put it up because you know there is nothing to support your views. You don't care about the truth - you just want to rewrite everything with a new narrative.
So without your boring windbag filibustering, let us see the factual evidence that you brag often about producing.And you still haven't come up with the evidence that your lord god almighty created the whole universe in only six days.
I never said God made the world in six days. And I assume you mean 24 hours days. As for producing what I say - I have produced. What you do with it is up to you. It is produced - and as I said - you were going to reject it before you saw it anyway.
The bible is God's word.Prove itTick tock, Tick tock, Tick tock, Tick tock
LOL! Psalm 119. the BIBLE. OT and NT. Everything. That leaves nothing to be added.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,sinful from the time my mother conceived me.So please explain how the baby is sinful in the womb if it is not inherited?That's your job. You are claiming something I haven't claimed. Psalm 51 is traditionally claimed to have been composed by David as a confession to his god after he sinned with Bathsheba?So this is Davids opinion and belief.I haven't seen a verse yet from the almighty himself. So get to it.
Stephen - hello - is there anyone at home? The verse above is evidence for the proposition. It may not be the overwhelming proof of the proposition - but it is clearly evidence for the proposition that babies are conceived in sin. Why you would want to run away from this verse and go elsewhere smacks of avoidance and makes you smell a little like a JW or Mormon. Since this is evidence for the proposition - no matter how thin it might be, we should explore it further before running off elsewhere in order to avoid what is quite a clear example here. And one I think is the voice of God confirming the same.
You are correct in relation to the view that the author of this verse, whoever it might be, believed it and it was his opinion. But Stephen, hello there, opinions and beliefs are not formed in vacuums. If the author of this verse believed he could be born or conceived in sin, how did he come to that conclusion? One thing it does give overwhelming proof for is that at the time that he wrote this - that some people clearly believed it was the case. Surely you would not deny this? You have indicated that the traditional view is that this is David. Perhaps it is or perhaps it is not. If it is David, why would he say he (David) was conceived in sin? Yes, we know he committed adultery with Bathsheba. And if he was talking about his son who was conceived from that union, then why does he refer to himself and not the child? There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that David's conception was somehow the result of a sinful union. So if it is David writing this confession, and he is referring to himself and it was his own truth, this man, or even a king, why is he is positing it so strongly? Unless of course it was a natural outworking of his own theology. But that is conjecture I concede.
Now if it someone else, then really we have not much to work on - save and except that the author at that time clearly believed from the very culture he lived in at the time - and potentially from his own history that he could be conceived in sin. Certainly the words have been credited to David, which implies that his words were not seen as being antithetical to the Jewish position on sin. If so, there would be commentary denying the words. Also since David is often credited to this Psalm, his beliefs and opinions would have been valued per se.
What is more. There is no evidence anywhere else disputing these so called words of David. No denial. No suggesting that his words were wrong or hyperbole.
In fact his words are consistent with the Bible.
Psalm 14:2
"The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
It is consistent because if babies can be conceived in sin - then the statement in verse 3 "that no one does good, not even one" is clearly on the same lines. In other words, It is not inconsistent with it. Now I certainly concede that in the first verse it does not say expressly that ALL BABIES are born into sin. Yet, neither does it say that No baby is conceived in sin. And nor does it say "all babies are born innocent".
Furthermore, Psalm 51:5 is consistent with the message of Genesis - that all humanity inherit the consequences of their first parents. That since their first parents acted in treason against God, humanity including all of its children have been judged and sentenced to death. Adam represented humanity. He was our champion. If Trump went to war against China tomorrow, the consequences of his actions would fall upon all Americans whether you support him or not. The Chinese would not be going around to every individual and saying "excuse me Stephen, did you support Trump or not? " No they would simply kill you or throw you into a prisoner of war camp until they decided what they would do with you. Despite your unwillingness or even consent for Trump to go war, you would suffer the consequences of his actions. Hence, to say that a child is conceived in sin - is consistent with that position. To say that all children are conceived in sin is consistent with that position.
There is not one verse in the Bible from God or anyone else that tells us that children are born innocent and without sin. There is no verse which denies that children are born into sin - and moreover, the entire character of the Bible declares that humanity is at war against God in treason.
Or will you just ignore this verse and pretend it is fake?No. The verse is real, written by David human a very human being by all accounts. Yes this is David writing his own beliefs and feelings. this is not evidence that god condemned all children to death and btw, there is no evidence what-so- ever that king David wrote anything.You are simply avoiding what I have asked for. show me where the OT god condemns all children to death for sin. I don't want the opinions or beliefs of biblical characters. I want factual evidence that god himself condemned all children to death.
Yes, I agree it was a human account. This does not by itself demonstrate that it is not also God's position. Yes, it is consistent with God's position that all humanity has sinned against God and is at war against him. I don't know whether David wrote it not. It really is irrelevant who wrote it - what is relevant is who is attributed to writing it.
I have not avoided it. In fact I have stopped you from directly avoiding it - by keeping us directly on this text. IT is evidence - and I suggest quite strong evidence that the bible says what was proposed above. You wanted to run away from the text as quickly as you could. You wanted to make it a footnote - one with only a small commentary by yourself only. You want to avoid scrutiny. I have shown you numerous times where God condemns all humanity to death. All includes children. The bible is God's word. Can you find anywhere where it supports your position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
But though my claim is true, Jesus told us that the number of Christians would dwindle to almost nothing before He returned. This is as it should be, so Christians will not be surprised or made despondent by it. The game was over the moment Jesus said, "It is finished!" on the cross 2,000 years ago.
Where is this? Surely you are not referring to one solitary verse in the NT where Jesus asks a questions about whether faith will exist when he returns or not?
I on the other hand take a different view of history. I still think we are in the early day of the church. In fact I think we are still in a pre-Christian world. Yes, Jesus has arrived. Yes Christianity is here. Yet, the world has not yet embraced Christianity as its own. Yes, there have been nations where this is the case. But not globally.
When people talk about a post Christian world, they are missing the point that Christianity has over the years risen and fallen around the globe, but that it continues to rise all the same. 2000 years ago - there were 12 Christians. Today there are billions. This is a fact and that fact is not in dispute.
Although originally the Middle East was the strong hold of Christianity, which then spread to Africa and then to Europe. And then the West., namely America, Australia, and NZ. And all of the small islands in Oceania. Mostly following the UK colonies. Now today - Christianity is spreading exponentially in Asia, South America and Africa. It is very true that in the West there is a decline. There are reasons for this - yet it is just a pause.
The philosophy of today will not last - it is relative and based in nothing. Hence as people stop embracing it and return to a stability - it will return to the Church. And this time - it will be exponential in the West. But even this is nothing compared to the glorious golden age that awaits the church.
That might still be a 1000 years away. But o how wonderful that will be.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Another week - the runaway refuses to response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well a worldview is a worldview and needn't cost a penny....There are probably 7.6 billion possible different worldviews.
Well that might be correct - but then that makes it even more reasonable for a person to spend their own money on their own worldview. I certainly don't want to spend my money on someone's worldview.
Using money to promote and enforce an uncertain ideology is not really promoting a worldview. It's really all about domination and control. The ideology itself becomes largely irrelevant, other than as a tool of control.
Yes true. That is why I think that the government should stop spending my tax money on enforcing their own domination and control.
Which is what we do to our kids. We dominate and try to control their view of the world from our particular world viewpoint. We selfishly do not want them to decide for themselves.
No I disagree with you. Yes, I want my kids to belong to the same world view as me. And this is why I am prepared to spend my money doing so. Yet that is where it ends. I don't want little robots who are unthinking. I want them to think for themselves - which may be entirely different to my worldview. Yet I know that they won't be brainwashed to believe what someone else will indoctrinate them with if I give them the tools to think with. What I see in schools is not tools to think for themselves - but rather tools to think in the same way as the people indoctrinating them. I do want them to think for themselves - because I actually do believe the things I believe. The Christian religion actually does not think that parents can make their children believers. We actually want them to own their own faith. I don't force my children to go to church. I never have and I never will. When they were young, I took them with me - because I could not leave them at home by themselves. Now they are older - even having left home, and married with their own children - they go because they want to go. Church is something that they have grown up loving - and something they desire to go and miss when they cannot go. During this time of Covid - it has been my youngest children - minors who have complained the most about missing church.
Though as I have already suggested we might eventually be outsmarted by our own smartness....namely technology, and the obvious influence it has upon how as we now look at the world....Everything is out there and available at the swipe of a finger....Who needs to be ranted at by a zealot talking gibberish, these days?
Again there is truth to your statement. My children have access to the internet. Their grandfather is a militant atheist and makes sure that they have all of the latest material. I have never stopped him from talking to them - or stopped them from staying at his home. Yet it is because I know they know how to think for themselves which gives me the confidence to do this. They very often answer his questions with brilliant responses, very often making him second guess himself.
And mostly, what I have taught them is logic. And also what many of the common flaws are. Logic and rhetoric are big things in our household. Two of my children have gone to become quite excellent criminal lawyers - one of my others is training for the bar. Logic - understanding philosophy has always put them at the top of their classes - and they are very independent thinkers. Yet they reject the worldview of atheism for many reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
So please explain how the baby is sinful in the womb if it is not inherited?
Or will you just ignore this verse and pretend it is fake?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you don't think any human has any personal responsibility for anything?Of course I do you silly little man.
Well then start using that logic in your responses. You continue on every occasion, EVERY OCCASION, to excuse the sinfulness of the humans in the bible and attempt to blame GOD. You give lip service only to saying you do. Put it into practice. Admit that Pharaoh was an evil man. Admit that Adam and Eve willingly ate the fruit knowing full well the implication of the same. Admit that the people of Noah's time were so vile and wicked and evil that they needed to be put to death. Don't excuse them.
But what you don't want to understand or accept is that I wouldn't butcher your innocent children for something you may or may not have been responsible for. You are also ignoring the fact that the bible is clear as to why Pharaoh acted the way he did.
I don't believe you. I suspect you probably agree with abortion and euthanasia. And if you do, then you are willingly butchering innocent children. As for ignoring the biblical story of Pharaoh, don't tell lies. I am not ignoring it. I have explained elsewhere that I totally agree that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I also explained how I understood that. You disagreed with me - because it did not fit your narrative and actually demonstrated that God was just and holy. That is the reason you rejected my explanation. Not because you could actually refute my argument. I also pointed out to that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. You just scoffed at this. Again you just make the evil human innocent - you excuse his vileness and just go on and blame God. Your prejudice is so blind it is almost amusing.
A wager is hardly a fitting description of what is going on here.It was nothing short of a bet. Stop trying to play down and make this dreadful violent biblical episode anything less than what it was. It was sheer wanton violence for the sake of your gods ego and reputation.
Well I disagree. In the case of a bet, both parties are doing something in order to win. And for the record, a bet implies an unknown outcome. There are no probabilities here. God knew how Job would respond, and informed Satan from the beginning. Satan still wants to push the point. Many people think in our world that having wealth is a sign that the gods are favoring you. And that being cursed is a sign that the gods are not favoring you. Here that philosophy is put to death. It is a warning against the wealth and prosperity doctrines well before it became vogue. Satan tried to suggest that Job believed this view and that if you take away his wealth and health that this would push him into a situation where he would curse God and then walk away. Job's faith was far deeper than Satan understood. Job was convinced that despite all of these things that happened to him, that God remained just. He could not figure out what was happening. Yet all of his mates - some of them just like you, tried to convince him that either God is unjust or vindictive or mean spirited or even more so - that Job deserved these things.
You just don't seem to get that God is absolutely entitled to his EGO. He is perfect and just. He is the only one in all things that is able to draw attention to himself and praise himself - without fear or worry that he is big noting himself. He certainly does not need to prove himself to us. I find that whole line of logic just a remarkable and arrogant line of nonsense. I actually think you are jealous. But you would deny this.
I can back everything I say with evidence.Not without lies and reinterpretation and putting words into the mouths of the authors and characters of the bible. You lot are all the fkn same. You like to talk and discuss what it is the bible never says.
Stop with the false narrative. The things I say are not reinterpretation. That implies that there is a well known interpretation and that I am changing it to suit myself. Unfortunately for you, it is the reverse situation. I simply follow the traditions of those who have gone before me for millennia. You on the other hand are your own source. Unless you can produce credible sources to demonstrate your views - and then they are the original interpreters of these things, then the burden is on you. I have produced sources - I refer to them all of the time. You have yet to produce one. So stop with the false narrative.
I can back everything I say with evidence.lets see you evidence for the existence of god. Lets us see your evidence of how god is supposed to have created the whole world and universe and all that is in it in only six days.
Yes, there you go again. Twist things around and then try and pull a fast one. I have never come onto this site and tried to prove that the God of the Bible existed. I have always maintained the position that such a thing is impossible. Yes, I have articulated various positions an arguments prove the existence of god. That is not the same thing at all. There is quite a difference between arguing god exists and the God of the bible exists. I used recently the philosophical argument of an agnostic to prove god exists. No one refuted that position. I though some would try. But no one did. Brother came on and took the topic down a completely nonsensical path.
I take the position that God of the Bible does not need to be proved for to even ask that question begins with a negative premise that will always take you to a negative conclusion. Logically, it is an impossibility to reach any other conclusion when you begin with that premise - unless of course your premises are false. And in this case - the premise would need to be deleted. Which would then in turn take us back to the truth of God.
I read somewhere recently, I am not sure whether it was on this site or another - that proving something is true is not the same thing as proving something is true to an individual. I could prove something is true to the world at large, yet this would still not be enough to convince you. And I think that is a truism.
You don't want the truth - because you cannot handle the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
You keep saying that these were "innocent" people or "innocent" children. However, according to the Bible, no one is innocent. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Furthermore, the Bible also says, "For the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) If we put 2 and 2 together, this means that everyone deserves death because everyone is a sinner. So if the Bible is true, then God is justified when he kills people.
It is a great point you make. Unfortunately, people who have a prejudice against the God of the Bible miss the significance of this point. They continue to see through the lens of the Western individualistic worldview where for them covenantal representation is not comprehensible. Hence, they look at the sins of the individual and make that the issue - where the Bible says - it is the entire human race that fell not just one individual. So they see the baby and think innocent.
They also continue to imply that God, who is perfect and completely and holy is not so. And they continue to place God under the jurisdiction of humanity. Again replicating the picture of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. These people do exactly the same thing - they think they know better than God. Yet, in their own lives, they probably support the practice of abortion - the killing of "innocent" human life. They would not call that murder though because they call these humans something less than human. But if God orders a punishment on humanity which includes these so called sub human lives - God becomes a monster. The hypocrisy is staggering. Then they wonder why the words they speak lack credibility and integrity and force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why did God kill all the firstborn of Egypt? Because Pharaoh, the ruler of Egypt would not obey God and let God's people go.I see. So god himself, who admits to "hardening Pharaohs heart" so he couldn't think any other way, then takes Pharaohs refusal to "let the people go" out on innocent first born. What an absolute bastard!
So you don't think any human has any personal responsibility for anything? It is God's fault! Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I already explained my position which you rejected because it did not fit with your narrative. The bible NEVER says that Pharaoh could not think any other way. You just inject things into the text. The first born of the Egyptians were not innocent. You keep spinning this line but it is not what the bible says. Firstly, the king of Pharaoh was guilty and everyone he represented was guilty because he was. You reject his guilt so logically you would extend that further. Secondly, they were enemies of God's people, even as children and infants who would have grown up to simply take the Jews as their slaves. Thirdly, the bible tells us that all people are conceived into sin. There is no innocent people. We all live in this fallen world which is a prison for those who commit treason.
Our God is the hero of the story. [of job]At the cost of pain, misery and loss to Job, What an absolute bastard! Job 1:13-19And all for a wager with Satan, who it was - by all accounts - god had sentenced to crawl on his belly eating dirt for the rest of his days for the crime of tempting Eve, Genesis 3:14 , but here he is , just "roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it" at will. Job 1:7. And able to converse with god even with his mouth full of dirt.
A wager is hardly a fitting description of what is going on here. The worst problem for you is that GOD has the prerogative of being GOD. You think that GOD should conform to your standards. You want a GOD made in your image, not one who rules the universe. Why is so difficult for you to see Satan as the bad guy here? You mixing of symbolism and literalism is amusing, and somewhat comical. You don't think Satan was a snake or a serpent anymore than you think Satan is real anyway, so for you to throw it out as though Christians might have see your perceived contradiction is precious. I suspect you don't even see the strawman argument.
So you have watched many Christians paint themselves into corners? Wow! I have seen you do it frequently.No you haven't. You seem to forgetting that - through all of your own holier than thou haughtiness, that I have nothing to defend. I simply pose people like you questions about what it is you have faith in. I then sit back and watch you attempt to defend the indefensible actions of the god that you have faith in. You also seem to forget that just because you have a strong faith in something, no matter how strong, doesn't make what you have faith in true. I will be honest, I sometimes envy those who have a genuine faith in a god and in particular an afterlife. But then I pull myself together.
Oh more denials. Ok. You actually don't even realize what you think you are doing. That is the joke. You don't pose questions. LOL! You make assertions - none of which you can prove. I can back everything I say with evidence - I can also back up everything I say with the traditions of the church - their theologians and other academics. You just make everything up - and sit back and think "Gee I am good". Yet no one really agrees with you. Sorry - the Brother does. And surely his credentials speak for themselves.
I agree - just because I think I have faith in something - does not make that thing true. I would never argue that it true based on my faith. Yet you do. Without faith you would have no reason to come to this site and post anything. You have faith that you can change people by the power of your persuasion. Why else would you bother? It is not as though you believe the truth or think that you believe the truth. You trawl through other people's posts and pick over their bones. I honestly feel sorry for you. That someone could be so far up themselves is truly breathtaking. But hey - we are all in this together. Good for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Bible to help me love God better .............................So when a non-Christian throws what they think is a nasty mean part of the Bible at me, it actually allows me to reflect upon that passage to learn more about God and his Holy Character.That would be go into full denial mode. Yes I have watched many Christians paint themselves into very tight corners trying to defend the indefensible, when it comes to unjust and willful and wanton acts of torture & murder by the god they say they "love"..Why did god kill all the first born of Egypt, including the first born animals. What had those innocents done?
Denial mode? It is not me in denial. So you have watched many Christians paint themselves into corners? Wow! I have seen you do it frequently. The overwhelming picture of GOD in the Bible is one who continually forgives people even when they do everything they can to write him out of history. God is very patient towards humans. Being patient does not mean however that he wont sentence and judge when necessary. I can be very patient with my children, but every now and then a time comes when punishment is warranted and carried out. If I just huffed and puffed all the time and never carried out my threats - then I would be a liar.
Why did God kill all the firstborn of Egypt? Because Pharaoh, the ruler of Egypt would not obey God and let God's people go. It was his choice to disobey and to expose his people and animals to God's wrath. We have discussed the meaning of Pharaoh's heart being hardened by God and by himself. We disagree. Yet when I look at this story, I think to myself, why did God give Pharaoh so many opportunities to do the right thing? Why did he not just kill him in the first place? And the answer is because God is merciful. Similarly I say why did he eventually destroy the first born and the animals? Because he tells the truth and is not a liar. Pharaoh made this decision on behalf of all Egypt and his livestock. He knew the implications - he just refused to humble himself. Likewise I see God's holiness - and his great act of grace and mercy on the Israelite nation. God will save his people. How can I not love God more for this? It makes me love God more and it makes me love his people more.
What is important as well to remember is that God did not destroy every person in the land of Egypt? Why did he spare anyone? And we learn the reason for it throughout many occasion in the Bible - because not only is God merciful, but he remembers those who help his people. And Egypt had helped God's people in the time of Joseph and for several hundred years thereafter until they they were made slaves.
The Bible is a book that reflects life in all of its glory.It is a book of war an conflict from beginning to end, the killing simply does not stop!. So stop trying to play down this very cold fact, where a god forced his own dupes to do his dirty work for him most of the time.
Certainly the bible describes a spiritual battle from its beginning to its end. This battle is often metaphorically pictured as war. It is also not surprising that the spiritual overlaps into the physical as well. As such, there are killings. But they will stop one day. But while the battle between God and his enemies continue, the killing will continue - not just physical killing but spiritual death as well - which is much worse. Why would you say that I or any other Christian would downplay this - the centre of our religion consists of Jesus crucified on a cross. You mock us with your false sense of rhetoric. God has never had the need to dupe anyone to carry out his will. That is just one more false assertion you throw out without a shred of evidence.
It does not hide the messiness of life.It doesn't hind the meanness of your god either, does it.
LOL@ Stephen. The Lord God is not mean. He is just and holy. He is love. He is also righteous and carries out his judgment. The Lord God is not mean with his love and his grace extends to generations. Consider Exodus 20: 5-6. In that verse God punishes the children for the sins of their fathers to the third and fourth generation - but he shows mercy to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. Note the contrast. His punishment is to 3 or 4 generations v mercy to 1000s of generations. I suppose you think this is mean? Imagine if he punished to 1000s of generations? No - you will simply spin this in another direction - not notice the difference of contrast but pick up on say " the sins of the father" and why does God punish the children - aren't they innocent? See how you pick and choose?
It is a very real book and sometimes hard book.Yes indeed it is. and all the comes from your god. And for unprovoked reads. What had Job - "gods most loyal servant "done to have all that pain and misery piled onto him ?Anyone who can support such a monster is a monster themselves.
Our God is the hero of the story. This is the fact and that fact is not in dispute. Job's suffering did not arise because of God. It was Satan who saw Job and suggested to God that Job only loves you because you take care of him. Let him suffer and then he will curse you and no longer follow you. God knew Job's heart. And he also knew the hearts of people on this planet that believe Satan's lie. The lie that blessing is a reward from God and suffering is a curse from God. Your comments above reflect that same thought which is why it is not incorrect to say that your heart is not far from Satan.
The lesson we learn from Job is that suffering does not reflect whether a person is righteous or not. We also learn that suffering may well arise from Satanic attacks. We also learn that Job's heart was for God - whether he had wealth or not. We also learn that God is wiser and more powerful than we could even possibly imagine. We also learn that Satan does not really understand the human heart. I love this story. Not because of the suffering - but because I learn that "why" is not the real question we ought to be asking in relation to "suffering". It is ironic that despite your protests that you can read - you miss the fact that Satan came to God and criticized God and then criticized Job and but for his interference the story would never have been written. Rather - you turn this attack by Satan into God is a monster story. You really are a charlatan. Smoke and mirrors. The prince of deceit.
I think that adds to its character and integrity.Yes it shows god in his true colours and as the mean spirited, murdering jealous god of war that the bible and god himself admits him to being.
God is holy and just. He is not a murderer. He is not mean spirited. Jealous. Yes and rightly so. A God of war. Yes. Indeed. But not unjust. Never unjust. And this is your predicament isn't? You don't like this idea - you can't stand that idea. Because it reveals you to be a sinner in need of a savior. And his name is Jesus. The second person of the Trinity. And it is only in his name that anyone can be saved. amen.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do need to have a level playing field?
And which fields are we trying to level?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
anarchism does not believe in any form of government. Libertarians consider that government is necessary in a civilized society. Each institution in society has a role and its own sphere - and these are what safe guard the society from abuse and exploitation by the other institutions. In other words, every institution has the capacity to become greedy and abuse its power because like the old adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Libertarians take the position that government ought to be small and balanced against the other institutions.
Having no government on the other hand leads to the abuse by the other institutions, such as private and elite wealthy power brokers, and also by religious groups.
These groups would simply and inevitable form their own police and armies and then we would have smaller states with their own governments trying to protect what they own. Again - this would lead naturally to some becoming big - and others forming allies. Some would lose. Anarchism is a pipe dream. As I said above - it is never a situation of hierarchy or no hierarchy - it is always going to be a question of who is the boss. In other words, government is inescapable. Yet, knowing this - and the corruption power brings, libertarianism works with the idea of separation of powers and powers with checks and balances.
The Left typically make the government bigger and bigger - with the dream pipe notion behind it - to get rid of government completely. Of course this has never happened and will never happen. Not for long anyway. Marx never really figured out how to from Government to no -government. Oh yes, he mentions the revolution. Violence. Peace.
But a bigger and bigger government leads of necessity to a loss in the power of the other institutions. And this leads to a reduction in the checks and balances. And this is in my view not only dangerous - but the autocracy of government. Which is really just another word for the concept "slavery of the people". Communism is ultimately slavery. And despite their objections to such a vile term - it is what it is. People must comply or face consequences. Individuals have no rights. Individuals become the property of the STATE.
Anarchy just gives the property of people to another person or state under the guise of fake freedom.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Then read Paul ffs! Your a fan of injecting what the bible doesn't mention into your arguments so try this: Paul doesn’t even mention the "miraculous" ascending into heaven event , no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat, or that Jesus was elevated physically into heaven after a given time. To Paul the body of Jesus who died was degradable, weak, and physical. IE Jesus was a man. Except to those who , like you want to believe those that made him a god.
No one says that Paul was one of the original apostles. He was not there when Jesus ascended into heaven. He was not there when Jesus left the tomb. He was not there when Jesus was eating with the disciples. Paul never attempts to be an eyewitness of those events. Yet he did see Jesus (1 Cor 9:1) Ephesians 1:20-22 Paul expressly says Jesus was raised from the dead and was seated in the heavenly places. 1 Cor 15:1-11 Paul expresses Jesus was raised physically and provides eye-witnesses for people at that time to go and check the facts. This is hardly something he would do it they were not around.
And try reading what Mark doesn't say too.
“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8)
Mark is one gospel out of four. It is a Gospel written with a purpose which was different to the other gospels - using much of the same material. Whether he used their material or whether he added new material or whether he omitted what they wrote - does not change anything about the truth of either his or the other gospels. Each gospel has a different purpose. Mark's version ends suddenly and I agree it ends at verse 8. Others of course could refer to the longer ending which incidentally does refer to those other events as well. Yet, I take the view that the longer version is not necessary because it was not in accord with the purpose of the book and was probably added by some well meaning Christians because they thought if Mark did not mention those things that he was not finishing the book properly. I take the view that the book of Mark from beginning to end was rushing us through it - and it ended as abruptly as it started. And this actually cements in my mind its truth and veracity. The other gospels unpack what happened after Christ's death. Mark has no need to - for it has accomplished its purpose. What the book of MArk does not say is that JEsus is not GOd.
Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus . He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Mark’s Gospel at all–and Jesus is called a “son of Mary,”
Already answered.
This is not to mention the fact that Marks accounts were added to or should that be the church forged a new ending to Marks gospel.And this is the stuff that you base your faith on? Don't make me laugh.
I fully agree that humanity is flawed and that Christians fall within the realm of humanity. Many Christians have attempted to encourage others in their faith by adding stuff they did not need to add. Others like to remove unlovely stuff. Again just because these things have happened and will continue to happen does not mean that the truth is not available for us. I base my faith in Christ and in the power of God. Now as you read that - don't make the error (as you do in other places) that I am suggesting that the Christ is not God. For it would be an incorrect assumption by you.
The NT and the OT reveal the Trinity. Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, became a human. And while he was on earth - he never assumed the rights nor the privileges of God. However upon his ascension - he has now rightly assumed these things and he rules the universe. Paul affirmed this and the NT overwhelmingly affirms this - and as I said above - I would prefer Paul over you any day.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes I thought you would come up with some sort of convoluted bullshit.Of course you would think that. You despise anyone who thinks differently to you.No . I simply disagree with you. I don't "despise" you, you silly little small minded man. It is jut that you seem to choose when Jesus is a god and when Jesus isn't a god but simply a very human man. . You are full of it tradesecret.
Please read my words. I said Jesus while he was here on earth was both FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. I am not picking or choosing any specifics about it at all. Jesus is eternally the Second Person of the Trinity. That means he is Fully God always. Yet he chose - to not rely upon any of his divine powers or rights while he was MAN on earth. None at all.
I don't see how that can be simpler. God, the SON, not the Trinity, became MAN - choosing to leave behind all rights and privileges of divinity - yet not divesting himself of divinity - God can't stop being God. Yet God can choose to not rely upon his rights as God. So from the time he was conceived until the time he ascended - not once did he rely upon his rights as God. As a man he was a man. He lived, he grew, he mourned, he ate, he drank, and he died. Christ did not rise from the dead to prove he was God - he rose to demonstrate that he was sinless, providing justification for us that when we trust in the messiah - as our human representative, that the curse which was invoked because of our first human representative has been reversed. God never stopped being God. Jesus was fully man.
Paul gave much evidence for itPaul knew no more about Jesus the man or god than you or I do., you fool. Paul, by his own admission was a nineteen faced bastard who would say anything to make himself feel important and authoritative. . A bit like yourself. I have always thought that you fancy yourself as a (st) Paul.Pauldoesn’t even mention the "miraculous" ascending into heaven event either, no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body,no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ whowould eat, or that the Jesus was elevated physically into heavenafter a given time. To Paul the body of Jesus who died wasdegradable, weak, and physical. IE Jesus was a man. Except to those who , like you want to believe those that made him a god.
Well, I will choose to listen to Paul rather than you. Paul admitted that he was the chief of sinners - primarily because he was killing Christians, hence rebelling against the desires and wishes of God. He also indicated that he was a Hebrew of Hebrews - pharisee of the pharisees - yet none of this mattered because the best of humanity - was as filthy rags before God. Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ. This is what changed his worldview. He did believe in the resurrected Christ - and this really is not in dispute. Paul in no place talks about Christ in a degradable place - he talks of our bodies - as weak vessels. Paul believed with all of his heart that Jesus Christ was and is GOD.
This is the Christian tradition which has been practiced for over 2000 years. Again I note you omit anyone who agrees with you. And again you cite no sources. You stand alone - I stand with the faithful in the church over thousands of years. I know whom I would rather trust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Money...The one cohesive God we all worship hey.....Now that's a global worldview.
Many do worship money - materialism or whatever you want to call it.
I agree that all worldviews are out there and cannot and should not be supressed. That's a different issue.
I am not sure whether they ought to be suppressed. I certainly don't think that all worldviews ought to be promoted. Hence, why I take the view that each worldview ought to promote itself - from its own funds. If it is successful then it will have plenty of money- otherwise it will die a natural death.
My contention is that school should be about equality, diversity and tolerance rather than separatism.
Why? School is education. Education is really about life. It is not simply the learning of knowledge. Nor is education neutral. Equality, diversity and tolerance are doctrines from a particular worldview - which does not believe in equality for other worldviews which don't promote the same values. Hence it does not actually believe in equality, diversity or tolerance except in a very narrow and limited way.
Though are religious fantasies really a worldview?.....I suppose God is no different to Santa Claus.....Though, outcomes have a tendency to be less harmful.
God is quite different to Santa Claus. Most parents are very happy to teach everyone about santa. I think many parents would not like to teach their kids about God. What is the difference? Something obviously. It is funny that atheists tend to think that Santa Claus and Easter Bunny and God are all imaginary creatures - yet they tolerate Santa and the Easter Bunny for kids and hope that the kids grow out of these things by the time they are an adult. Yet they fight like animals to stop kids from being taught about God as kids, some even calling it child abuse, and hope like crazy that adults never believe in God. I don't know about you - but there is something not quite right about that thinking. It is cultural genocide if the Atheists got their way. This is neither equality, nor is it diversity, nor is it tolerant.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes I thought you would come up with some sort of convoluted bullshit.
Of course you would think that. You despise anyone who thinks differently to you.
So tell me how was Jesus the man able to for instance "walk on water". Does the man flip between being a god and a human at will or just when it suits you.
Well Stephen, I don't suppose you read my response to the Brother, but I don't actually think that any of the miracle stories that Jesus does is evidence of his deity. That is a common position - unfortunately it is incorrect. Jesus' walk on the water had nothing to do with his divinity but everything to do with humanity. Just like his raising people from the dead or healing the sick is not a sign of divinity. Peter and the other disciples also did these things. Yet not because they were divine - because they were not. Yet the same power which worked in them also worked in Jesus. That is the point. If on the other hand you say they are supposed to point to his divinity, then that contradicts your position that the gospels attempt to prove he was divine.
For the record he could flip between the two at will if he wanted too. That is the prerogative of divinity. Yet that is not what he does. And I never said that he does. I have said - that Jesus is God. I take the view that he is the second member of the Triune God. Yet he laid aside his rights as God and humbled himself to become a servant, even a man. He did not rely upon his divine power or presence or authority whilst he was on earth in the form of a man. Hence he does not flip from one to the next.
And Christians may well teach that the very human Jesus was a "ALSO" a god but never ever provide the evidence to support that stupid and ridiculous claim. Jesus was a very human Jew, that taught and preached to Jews not Christians. He was king of the JEWS not king of the Christians. There were no Christians at the time of Jesus King of the Jews. Get over it princess.
You talk so much nonsense. Paul gave much evidence for it. The Gospels provided evidence for it. Jesus' own words evidenced it. From the prophecies, from his supernatural conception, to his ascension his life evidenced it every step of the way. He did not attempt to prove his divinity. He did not rely upon his divinity. He did not stand on the rights of his as divine. He even commented at one stage to Peter while he was being arrested that he could if he so desired call thousands of angels to his defense if he wanted to. No ordinary man could do that.
Jesus still lives. He rose from the dead. He reigns from his throne right now. He is king over the world - and Christians are in this world. Jesus was a very human Jew. Totally agree - and confirm it. God became a man - this is the beauty of the gospel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith and belief are the same things.I'll have to disagree with you there. I think I could have qualified my statement better. After all, knowledge is a belief - a justified true belief. So, perhaps in a limited sense, faith and belief can be the same thing, but not all faith is the same thing as all belief.I also object to faith being equated to trust. If nothing else, there is a religious connotation to faith. Beyond that, trust is something that is generally earned (based on evidence) and faith is trust without evidence....if you have evidence, then you don't need faith.Hopefully this clears up the definitions I am using and allows us to communicate a little better.
Well if it helps you sleep better at night, believe whatever you want. If you want to be able to discuss things with religious people honestly, then you ought to be able to understand what their definitions as well. I find it incredulous that someone claiming to be skeptical about someone else's position does so from their own place of power. That is a really easy thing to do - Christians do it all the time when talking to atheists. And atheists as a general rule get frustrated by this attitude expecting in most cases that the Christian will leave their place of power and simply agree to the skeptics definition of words.
Yet, I think if either side are going to sit in their places of power and be skeptical - it really becomes a non-fruitful discussion and leads mostly towards attacks on each other's integrity and views.
I, personally like to know what the horse is saying - and hearing it from the horse's mouth. I can listen to the duck tell me about the horse and the duck will get some things right - but the duck will also get many things wrong. But it would be unfair to both the horse and to me if I only listened to the duck and then whenever I spoke to the horse I used terms that both the duck and I agreed with and none of the terms that the horse agreed with. It will only make me look like a goose.
I can work with some of your redefined definitions, even if I don't agree with you. I don't hold to the notion that trust has to be earned. Yes, in many cases trust will need to be earned, but there are many cases where equally it is not earned. My parents do not need their trust to be earned from their children. True they can lose it. But it is not earned in the first place. Similarly, people in authority, like police officers, paramedics, doctors, etc. by virtue of their position do not need to earn trust from everyone before taking up their roles and or executing their roles. Imagine if I said to the police officer, sorry you can't arrest me because you have to earn my trust first? It is nonsense - similarly with the paramedic - sorry you cannot treat me before you earn my trust. I suggest it is the same with clergy - and I certainly take the view that God does not need to earn my trust. I actually think the idea that God has to earn my trust is just about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You attach a religious aspect to faith. Yet even Hollywood does not do that. How many movies ask people to have faith in themselves. How many psychologists and counselors around the world do the same thing? I think adding a religious aspect to faith is an addition that you are making that most people would probably disagree with. I certainly accept that faith can have a religious aspect - but I certainly do not think that the two must.
I am also puzzling over your notion of belief. I cannot see how belief is not knowledge. Yes, I know you qualify it with "justified true" but what does that even mean. With what measure is the true method of justification? Are scientific peer reviewed studies the only true method justification? Is a jury of 12 the only true method of justification? Is the views of the majority the only true method of justification? And if any one these are the only true method of justification - what was the measure that enabled us to know that they are the only true methods of justification? Surely it could not be itself - because that would produce a circular argument - and if it is something else other than itself - then it clearly is not the only true measure of justification. Perhaps then it is a mixture of possible methods of justification? But that really only makes things murky? It relies on an assumption - that because most of the different measures come up with the same sort of answer that perhaps they might be true. Yet that does not guarantee anything.
Truth, if such a thing actually exists, requires a standard to measure it. Religious belief in the main has its own standards of truth. And so far as those measures of truth do not contradict in the main other mixtures of relative truth then how could you or anyone with any degree of intellectual integrity say it is not something to rationally base truth and belief and knowledge on? Really you need to produce a foolproof measure to justify things before you can be skeptical about anything -- unless you take the view that you are the measure and you have everything worked out and in fact you are perfect and never make mistakes ever.
I also disagree with your view that evidence does not require faith. It depends on, what you mean by faith in the first place. As my illustration above in relation to the seat people sit on - faith is required by anyone who wants to sit on it. Now you may simply call it evidence you have obtained by experience or evidence you have ascertained by reason or the study of physics. Yet that is what I call faith and that is what I talk to others about when we are talking about faith. You must have faith that the evidence you received is accurate. you must have faith that the experiences you have had were genuine. you must have faith that the very mind you utilise is working properly. You must have faith that the scientific method is foolproof - or even that logic is logic. The fact that you do these things over and over again - does not remove your faith in those methods - simply it reinforces it. I think that without faith in what ever you are doing is - you would not do it or attempt to do it.
SO hopefully we can have fruitful discussions in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So: If "left Wing Progressives" and their associated worldview, want to set up their own school for their own children then that's ok. (What ever a "Left Wing Progressive" might be. Perhaps they have two heads and six legs.)
Absolutely. I have no issue with this so far as they pay for it themselves. It is their right. I don't have to agree with their ideas.
Where does this end?....World view encompasses ideology in all forms....How tolerant of radical worldviews are you? Or is this just a case of all worldviews are equal but some worldviews are more equal than others.
I take the view that if they pay for their own worldviews by themselves - that unless it is a pretty successful one with good ideas it will fall flat. I take the view that progressive political views would die if they had to actually pay for it themselves - this is why they make it compulsory so that it wont die out. I think all worldviews should be equal under the law - in the sense that all views ought to be subject to the same laws.
The bottom line is that factional ideologies are divisive and serve no real educational purpose other than to proliferate divisive worldviews. Which is what has been happening for millennia and clearly doesn't work in terms of a tolerant and cohesive world.
No that is incorrect. Factions are part of our human pysche. No one is totally absolute - we all fall somewhere on the line of absolute v relativism. Factions are just another word for competition. We don't want a system where there is no competition. Yet we do want one where successful worldviews are promoted fairly and where others fall by the wayside.
And let's be honest, no matter how well engrained a persons theistic beliefs or worldviews have become. Theism in all forms is still nonetheless, archaic, myth based unprovable hypothesis.....Historical value maybe, but even the value of teaching about the past is debateable.
So you keep saying - but I disagree with you. It is not just religious worldviews - it is EVERY worldview that is unproveable. Yours included. It takes as much faith to believe yours as it does for me to believe mine.
Personally I cannot see the value of conditioning children with a 2000 year old worldview in the 21st century....China for example is no longer a mysterious and inaccessible place on the other side of the world. China is now only the click of a button away. Conditioning our children to believe that they are different from Chinese children just isn't a benefit to the advancement of a now global society...So teaching our kids that they are different from the kids down the street is just plain backwards thinking and frankly a quite stupid way of carrying on in a Nation that probably considers itself to be a progressive world participant.
I am not into conditioning per se - the point is every child is ALWAYS going to be conditioned by someone - so let us at least do it in a way that suits someone. In my view - it should be user pays themselves - that way - we will see worldviews that reflect the views of their parents - and if they want to pay someone else- good - and if they dont good.
The more the merrier in my view - so far as they pay for it themselves.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Have I? So simply explain to me, is Timothy speaking here of Jesus the man or Jesus as god? For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 And tell me how Timothy et al knew which was the "mediator" and which was the god?
Well thanks for getting back to me. And yes, I think you did forget that Christians teach that Jesus is man as well as God, which explains why you used this verse. In this verse Paul, not Timothy (Paul wrote to Timothy) is specifically talking about the "man Christ Jesus" as the mediator between God and Man. Here, he is speaking of Jesus as man - the mediator. He is also talking about God but he is not referring to Jesus, specifically. I would take it, as Christians do, that God here refers to the Trinity. The breach caused by sin was between the Godhead - the Trinity and humanity. It was not specifically between Jesus and humanity. Your last question is intriguing. How could Timothy or Paul, know which was the mediator and which was God? Only the Son became human. The Father did not and the Spirit did not. Neither the Father or the Spirit could be the mediator. It was only because the Son was prepared to become human - that this gave him the right to be able to represent humanity. Paul as he was writing this is totally aware of the twin nature of Jesus and so was Timothy. I suggest it is simple deduction. The Trinity is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is God. He is the Lord of the universe. There is only ONE GOD.
Yet, Jesus is the Son, who became a servant, even a human, to be both fully GOD and fully MAN. As God he could not be a mediator because he could not properly represent humanity. As Man he can do this. The question I think is self-explanatory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
To my belief faith is not needed. My belief is that if facts disprove god, he exists not. The day I convert to theism is the day we discover a god. If we don’t discover a god, then I am non-theist.Faith is not needed. You can either prove he exists or you can’t. Why have faith when you have facts?
Your first sentence is muddled. Belief and faith are interchangeable words. In other words, your belief is your faith. Your second sentence is illogical. There are no facts that can prove a negative. In other words it is impossible to prove a negative. Your third sentence talks of discovering God. Please explain to us what facts you would accept as evidence of God being discovered and then justify why you have this knowledge about God. Your fourth sentence is curious as it seems you have not explained your third sentence.
Thanks for your thoughts by the way. Yet if it please the court - I have not yet seen any evidence anywhere that presents sufficient reason to disprove God exists. In other words every fact I observe actually demonstrates the existence of God. Faith is not the means of discovering God. God is the means of understanding faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
PGA2.0: Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there?Faith can be used to prop up any belief..even those which are demonstrably false. This makes "Faith" a completely worthless basis for belief.
Faith cannot be used to prop up any belief. That is like saying our legs prop up our legs. It makes no sense. Faith and belief are the same things. They are synonyms along with the word trust.
Faith or belief or trust reflect our understanding of a particular fact. We sit on a chair. The chair is an object of reality. We are an object of reality. We sit - or choose to sit on the chair because we have faith or trust or a belief that it will hold us up. Now it is not our faith which holds us up. It is either the chair - or the principles of physics which allow us to sit our weight on it which holds us up. Is it the principle of physics that holds us up? Probably not - principles don't really do anything, they are merely articulations or expressions of something more objective. Yet the outworking of the principle which when put into action enable a chair to be built and then used sat upon. So what holds us up? Is it the wooden stool or is it the expression of a principle?
Yet I could say I have faith in the principle of physics - which allows me to trust that if I sit on this chair then I wont fall down.
PGA2 position above is that faith or the trust he has in God comes from hearing a message. In other words it did not arise from nowhere. Most people see a chair and automatically sit on it. It is not like they consciously think, do I trust the principle of physics? No they look at the chair - and assess it based on their own experience - their own weight and the way the chair looks. If they don't trust their gut feeling, they wont sit on it. PGA's faith in God is based in part upon the message he has heard and weighed up based upon his own experience.
People don't stand on faith alone - no one does. Yet faith is part of every human's life. And not only that - PGA is not saying he bases his life on faith - but on Jesus. Jesus is the object of reality. He has weighed up the message based upon his own experience - and it rings true for him. On the other hand you probably could be accused on basing your life on less than that. You simply look at the world around you based on your own experience and form the conclusion that you are alone. The faith you have is in yourself. You trust yourself - but based on what? It is not as though you have never made errors of judgment or mistakes. Yet, despite that knowledge, you still trust yourself. Now the question is why? Why would you think that trusting yourself is ok - but that if someone else says that they trust God because they have come to this conclusion based on their own experience it is wrong - such that you have to argue the point? After all, they are not perfect, just like you are not perfect. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well as I see it "Church" is a bit like riding a bike, it should be something that people choose to do when the basic day to day chores are out of the way. And lets be honest some people are just as passionate (religious) about a chosen sport or leisure activity as others are about theist ideas.The overwhelming problem for me is that Theism is a collection of diverse and unproven "worldviews" and rigidly conditioning young minds with such uncertain ideas is socially counter-productive. Here in the U.K. the destructive divisions created by the enforced teaching of Catholic and Protestant dogma in faith schools has been all too apparent.The problem also with an unproven and diverse choice of "world view" is the inevitable overspill from pure theist hypotheses into conflicting ideas and dictates of social governance. Just look at how the anti-abortion lobby is dominated by religious groups in the U.S. and yet pure theism makes no such judgements. That is to say, that theism always tends to try and exceed it's hypothetical parameters and dominate or influence the rules of social governance.And so my questions to you are, that given the availability and accessibility of theist ideas anyway, why do you see the need to enforce a system of theism based social separatism upon vulnerable young children? Are you suggesting that the needs of an uncertain "Church" are greater or more important than the needs of a cohesive and real-time society?
Thanks for your email. I think suggesting church is a bit like riding a bike is unhelpful. While it may be true that there is a perception along those lines for some - it is not likely that anyone is going to agree that following a sport is religious. Whether or not some people choose to go to church does not reduce its validity and ongoing place in the community. There are still more people attending church each week that attend sports games. And while the numbers may be reducing the numbers are still a force to deny it should have any say. After all - even the local sporting club is prepared to advocate to the government for its specific interests.
Now while the problem for you seems to be the collection of diverse and unproven worldviews, this too is unhelpful. No worldview is proven. Secularism for instance is not a proven worldview - indeed many people would react against the idea that it is a worldview at all. Similarly with atheism. Yet it seems you don't have a particular problem with it been forced onto children. I for the record do not want secular ideas pushed onto my children. And nor do I want to be forced to pay for them to be secularized with someone' else's worldview. The world has diverse views because there are diverse points of religion. People who send their children to faith schools - and who pay for the education of their children - ought to be able to dictate what they are paying for. Education is a tool. Yet it is NEVER neutral. If a catholic wants to send their child to a protestant school - that is a choice they make - and ought to pay for. Similarly, if the situation was reversed. Forcing all people to send their children to a public school which is going to teach against their family values is more of a problem for society. It causes resentment by children towards their parents. It causes resentment by parents against the teachers and against the government. It causes resentment by the parents against the so called Left wing progressive elements in society. It is actually one of the most destructive and divisive tools against families and I suggest society as a whole.
I see the teaching teaching young kids necessary - because all education is non-neutral. It is never a matter of teaching in a vacuum - someone will always fill up the hole somewhere. Secular teachers desire to fill it up with the secular worldview and they don't care how it hurts the family. In fact they think it is their responsibility to recondition the children. I say that is elitist and unhelpful and morally wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Firstly, when is public funding not public funding?Paying for ones own children's education and the choice of ethos therein, is in essence no different to accepting State provision through taxation. The difference is, that you inevitably will end up with a factional society based upon religious difference. In my opinion religion should be separate from State especially in education and especially in early years when children are at their most vulnerable and easily influenced. Let's be honest, religious information by the very nature of it's variation and uncertain origins is not a sound factual basis for the needs of a cohesive society. By far the best basis for a cohesive society is to enforce the notion of equality and that just cannot be achieved if formative conditioning is based upon a privately funded system of religious separatism.The academic ability and consequent social status and wealth of an individual has little to do with religion per se. Inherent physiology, and inherited social status and it's associated influences and effects are far more important. In short there will inevitably be clever and wealthy Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists etc. Just as there will always be the opposite. In other words, natural hierarchy prevails irrespective of religion."Religion loves education" and "getting kids for life" yep you said it.... Religion getting kids for life is no different is to educationalists getting kids for life. Though you cannot teach religion out of people as it fundamentally is not there in the first place. Religion is taught into people, and for the reasons given above is not necessarily a benefit to the needs of a cohesive society.So how people "turn out" is determined by inherent ability, inherited social status and formative and ongoing conditioning.....Natural hierarchy and what you were taught to think by parents, family, community, school, state and media. And I would suggest that the immediacy of media through technology based information systems, is rapidly becoming the overriding conditioner of younger people. If every option is available, then kids will choose for themselves....Though on the other hand the concern is that who controls the media controls the future. Which may or may not be a good thing from a human perspective, but looks like it's inevitably the way things will evolve.Whether or not highly evolved technology will take on board the concepts of traditional religions as an operating system seems pretty unlikely. One would imagine that pure, emotionless logic is the only way forwards.
Public funding of education ensures that the secular view of the world will dominate and squeeze out other perspectives. My view is that this is unjust and cruel to other worldviews and perspectives especially given they are the ones who end up paying for their own views to be squeezed out while the secular view is paid for by all other positions. This is a form of cultural genocide - in substance - just one that takes generations to achieve.
The ironic thing about secularism is despite its rhetoric of equality - it tends to favor views that agree with it rather than those who oppose it. Hence it does not practice equality. And while I do happen to agree with equality - but let me explain that further. I think that equality occurs when the state applies the law equally to all people under the law. I don't take the view that this means that everyone has to be equal per se. I am not even sure that everyone being equal means except and save it is the same under the law.
Keeping kids in one's religion is a good thing to desire. We all have views about the world and we obviously think they are right even if we would concede that they are not perfect. Otherwise we would think differently. I don't agree that all religions or worldviews are equal - I think some are far more dangerous than others. I think some are far better than others. I do however believe that all religions and worldviews ought to be treated equally under the law.
I also agree that church and state ought to be separate - though exactly what that means is vague. For me it means that the state is not subject to the church and the church is not subject to the state - because their is a separation of powers doctrine underlying it. Others though take a perverse view and one that is based more upon a doctrine of secularism rather than separation of powers. They think the state can tell the church what to do and that the church should just keep out of politics and society.
When you talk about separation of church and state what are you referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hi, I saw it - I am just working on a reply.
I have started numerous times and then deleted what I wrote.
Will reply soon. Good questions.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRADESECRET, WHAT DIVISION OF CHRISTIANITY DO YOU FOLLOW? BAPTIST, CATHOLIC, JEHOVAH WITNESS, OR?! I'LL AWAIT YOUR ANSWER, THANKS.
When you can explain to me why it is important for you to know what division of Christianity, perhaps I might answer. Presently, however for your attention - I am a Christian and I follow the traditional position of the church.
Yes, and I will also disclose that I do not belong to a cult as such like the JWs or the LDS. But surely that is obvious since they are not Christian denominations nor do they follow the traditional position of the church.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Oh this is so much fun!!!
Why are you throwing in the Nicene Creed that contradicts the Trinity Doctrine?! The Creed states with specificity that Jesus is ONLY THE SON of our serial killer Hebrew God Yahweh! "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father," like the following passage agrees with when Jesus stated: “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). Get it? Obviously Jesus isn't talking to Himself as the Hebrew God Yahweh in the this passage, so therefore the Nicene Creed and the Matthew 27:46 shows Jesus to be only the Son of Yahweh!
Is that a serious question? LOL! The creed is a statement of the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity. If you do not understand this - then there is NO point in discussing anything.
This now turns our understanding of Jesus being Yahweh God upside down! Another passage precluding that Jesus is only the Son of Yahweh: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also.” (John 5:19) In this passage Jesus declares that he is following a pattern laid down by Yahweh the Father. He is expressing obedience to Yahweh the Father. If Jesus was Yahweh the Father, he wouldn’t be stating this verse in the first place to Himself!
Again, wow! Jesus is not the Father. I have said that on numerous occasions. This verse confirms what I have been saying. Yes, it contradicts you - because you wanted Jesus to be the Trinity and the same as the Father. Jesus is not the Father. Thanks for confirming it.
Yet in another passage showing Jesus is ONLY the Son of our Hebrew God Yahweh: “By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me.” (John 5:30) Jesus says, "by myself", I can do nothing. This blatantly indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship separately with Yahweh where He is not trying to “please himself” but rather is seeking to “please the one who sent Him” which is the separate Father! Therefore, Jesus is not Yahweh the Father in this passage!!!!
Oh dear, is the truth dawning on you or are you setting me up for the sake of your own agenda? LOL!
Now, as if the above passages aren't damaging enough in showing Jesus is NOT God, then we have this one to add: “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) This is another strong statement by Jesus showing that makes a distinction between Himself and Yahweh God, whereas Jesus is now NOT Yahweh in a Triune Doctrine in this passage, but only the son!
Sorry. Don't go further than the text. They demonstrate that Jesus is not the Father. They don't demonstrate that Jesus is not God. Remember the Triune God is not just the Father, but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God - three persons. The Father is God. But so is the Son. To make a distinction between the two is legitimate because the bible does - but to jump in logic and say therefore Jesus is not God, not true.
Again, how can Jesus be God when He states this: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. “ (Matthew 24:36) Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows, of which if Jesus was the Father God of the Trinity, he would already know!
Because Jesus was stating this in his capacity as human. As fully man, he had emptied himself of his divine attributes as it were. He became a man fully so that he was able to represent man as a man and not as God. Hence his earlier statements relying on the Father. Each of the miracles we see Jesus do - is not because he is God. But rather that as a man he relied upon the Spirit of God. When Christians attempt to use any of Jesus' miracles as proof of his divinity, they are incorrect and not understanding the doctrine of Jesus, fully human. This is why the apostles were able to do miracles as well - not because they were divine - but because God the Holy Spirit worked in them. It is why Jesus said, I of myself can do nothing. Jesus was fully GOD, no question about that. But his walk on earth was as fully human - and this really is the amazing part of the story.
There is always someone that ruins the party, and in this case, YOU TRADESECRET ruin our faith in Jesus being Yahweh God incarnate by bringing forth the Nicene Creed! The hard part now is the fact that if you still want to believe Jesus is our God, then these passages herein CONTRADICT this alleged fact, therefore, how can we base our Christian faith upon CONTRADICTIONS?! Remember this adage? Where there are contradictions, there're falsehoods, where there're falsehoods, there are LIES!
I am sorry your party has been ruined - but I am pleased that you will stop with the lies about Jesus being Trinity. Jesus is God and nothing you have quoted has changed that and none of your comments argued the point - so nothing has changed from my perspective. From your perspective - hopefully you can move on from saying Jesus is a murderous psychopath and are able to distinguish between the Father and the Son and will inform your discussions from now on.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
.
Tradesecret, The Debate Runaway, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT,I am going to use your way of thinking, in the way that you would not debate me until I addressed your post #194, remember? Even though you came up with more excuses to RUNAWAY from debating your biblical ignorance upon Jesus' TRUE MO within the scriptures.Therefore, within the same vein, when you address my question to you relating to what DIVISION of Christianity you follow, then, in part, like your quote in the above link; " I will consider answering your embarrassing quotes in your post #22 above. Get it? In simpler terms for you to understand, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. LOLYou embarrassingly are still running away from telling the membership in what DIVISION of Christianity you follow:
It would be lovely if you did use my logic. But whatever division of Christianity I follow is irrelevant to our discussions. 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. And the fact that I want you to do this is not for the same reason you want me to disclose such information. (That being you need to know my background so you can go to your magic little internet site and find the appropriate holes in my logic) I just want you to have some intellectual honesty. I don't think that is too much to ask, although perhaps with someone without the capacity to have such honesty it might be.
Besides o Holy Brother of the cloth, if you really were a brother of any description, and even a Christian, which clearly you are not, you would be able to tell what the color of my stripes are. I picked you straight away - as do all the real Christians on this site. Most have given you the benefit of the doubt at some time -but overall, it is very easy for Christians to recognize each other and each stripe if you like. In fact, most Christians can pretty quickly spot a dud -or a fraud or a cult member. It really is not that difficult. And the main reason is - because we actually do have most things in common doctrinally, and we share the love of God and the partnership of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit.
The problem you are having with me is deepened - because I have a broad background - and I have read widely. I have already told you I used to be an atheist and now I am not. I could inform you that I have written publications anti-Christian, ones you may even have quoted. But would that help you? Not at all. You in fact mostly use the same arguments I have used in the past. But times changes old man. Some people grow up and evolve from the sheer weight of facts. I could inform you of any of these things - but it will not change anything which is why I typically do not and choose to remain anonymous.
My stripes if you like are pretty easy to detect. But if you really are a True Christian it would not be difficult to pin me down. Because you have to ask - and demand and make it a condition - LOL! you demonstrate an ignorance that is truly breathtaking. Just for the record on several censuses over the years since I became a Christian - I have ticked various boxes- interestingly, the first time as a Christian I chose to tick the no - religion box. Why did I do that? I certainly was a Christian. And for most secularists this would have misrepresented the stats - yet many Christians I know do not consider Christianity to be a religion. Yes, they go to church, read their bible, pray and even give money to the church. But they did not and at the time I did not consider Christianity to be a religion. After some time as a Christian, I started to tick the census box Christian. I never nominated a denomination because I thought denominations were evil and I did not want to add to the divisions. Now I am quite happy to tick my denomination. I see denominations as a wonderful thing. You see even my views on such were maturing or evolving. I evolved from being a selfish and annoying little know it all atheist to something quite more.
What else do you need to know? Perhaps the problem you are having old man is that Christians really do share a lot in common despite your ridiculous claim that they hardly believe anything the same and read the bible in many different ways. If that were the case, then you should have easily detected my stripes. Yet the fact is I stick pretty close to the traditional doctrines of the historic church and that is one reason why you are struggling to figure out my stripes. You see from my point of view Christians as a whole believe the same thing - sometimes they say things in ways that seem to be at odds with each other. Yet when it comes down to it - much of the doctrinal difference is on emphasis. Mostly it is in relation to church government or cultural differences. Still - at least I am not pretending to be something I am not. You on the other hand are a fake and a fraud and as such and until you stop doing so - I am not going to disclose anything about myself unless I want to.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Timothy wrote:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5DO you want me to explain it [Timothy 1 Timothy 2:5] or do you simply want me to read it as it reads, which by the say is perfectly in accord with my theology and Christian theology. One thing this passage is NOT saying is that Jesus is not a god or God. It however is saying there is ONE GOD. Christians take the view that GOD here is the Trinity. Christians also by the way and I know you know this because I have said it many times, Jesus is Fully man. This is one reason why I would never say that Jesus is the Trinity or even the OT God per se.Just as I predicted above #261Stephen wrote: "But no doubt Tradesecret will now attempt to rewrite the scripture, redefine words and put words into the mouth of Timothy ............and James....... and John.
Stephen - LOL@ you. What did I inject into the passage? You made the suggestion that Jesus is not God. And that this verse proves that. I indicated I totally agreed with the verse because it is not talking about Jesus as God but as man. I indicated and remain of the view that God here is referring to the Trinity - which in the Christian view includes the Son as the Second member of the Triune God. It does not refer to Jesus as God just as it does not refer to the Father or the Holy Spirit as God. Timothy uses the term God. In Christian understanding this God is the Trinity. And yet when Christians read this passage they are thinking of the Trinity. This verse rather confirms the twin doctrine - of Jesus being fully Man. Even that is an incredible thing to think about. No other man could do this - what was it that so special about him? Not just being a king of Israel - because no other king of Israel could do this? In fact it had to with his priesthood status - in the order of Melchisadek .Still I suppose I don't expect you to understand. you are still ripped because I did not try and make out that this verse is incorrect. It is in fact a wonderful verse and confirms the Christian doctrine.
Tradesecrete has now injected into scripture and put words into the mouth of Timothy something that simple isn't there i.e. what the bible doesn't say at all. He wants to discuss what the bible is not saying but wants it to say. This is a perfect example of Tradesecret rewriting scripture.
I am not injecting anything here at all. You wanted it to say something it did not. You saw the term God and you saw the term Jesus in the same verse and figured you had a gotcha moment. You forgot that Christians teach not only that Jesus is God, but also man. As I have tried to explain and which you just don't want think about is the notion that God is a Trinity. I am happy to work with God being called God or God being understood as the Trinity. It makes no difference to me. Here you so badly wanted to be able to prove Jesus was not God, that you missed the entire point of the verse. Paul points out that Jesus Christ as a man was the perfect mediator. I have not rewritten anything - simply I did not make draw conclusions without thinking - something you have said above you don't want to do.
Christ Jesus was and is a Man. And as a Man he was and is the only one capable of being the mediator between God and Man. Christians do not take the view that Christ as fully God was the mediator. That would be to bring God down. It would be absurd. God cannot die - but man can. Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This is Christian teaching and what the bible clearly indicates.Jesus! , you really are in muddle aren't you. Even the wind doesn't change its direction as much as you do.
Well no. I am not in a muddle. Obviously by your reply you are. Jesus is Fully God and Jesus is Fully Man. Not half god and half man - fully God and fully Man. I am simply repeating Christian doctrine. You know it - but you want to say that I am doing it. LOL @ your nonsense. Jesus ate food, he cried, he got tired, he slept, all things he did as a man. Christians totally affirm that Jesus is man. Yet we also affirm he is God. Not just a son of God because he was born into the line of David. I notice you have not attempted to justify this reasoning yet. I hope you get around to it. I am genuinely interested in knowing whether every king in the line of David is called the Son of GOD. Of course it does not prove your point even if you prove it - certainly it adds a plank in your argument - I can see that - so far as we forget every thing else in the bible - or write it of as mythology.
So Jesus here is not a god according to Timothy, but simply a messenger/mediator. But no doubt Tradesecret will now attempt to rewrite the scripture, redefine words and put words into the mouth of Timothy .........No, I just responded in accordance to the teaching I had - about Jesus - not wanting to put him into boxes like you............and JamesJames 2:19 — Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.Another great verse. I believe in ONE GOD. And this verse confirms that belief is not restricted to believers.and JohnJohn 17:3 — And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.Another great verse-You are all over the place man. You are even now denying what the gospels themselves make perfectly clear. The gospel writers make no mention of Jesus ever being god, NONE AT ALL! as much as you WANT them to. They simply tell of Jesus being a mediator , just as I have been saying all along. All kings of Jerusalem were called "sons of god" because they were the "MEDIATORS" between god an man , it didn't make them gods themselves.I'll say it again. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. He was King of the Jews not King of the Christians. He was a Jewish Rabbi not a Christian Priest. Jesus was a very human rightful heir to the throne of JERUSALEM he was not a god. Grow up!
I am not denying the passages and what the gospels say. I really am not. In fact I read these passages in the original Greek. I have investigated many commentaries - and lo and behold - they are in agreement. But not with you. It seems you stand alone. And I think that when one stands alone in the interpretation of the bible, it is a dangerous place to stand. It does not make you wrong of course - Athanasius stood alone and was proved to be right. Yet it is a dangerous place to stand all the same. You dont have to agree with me I can hardly care - but you do need to stop accusing me of telling lies and injecting things into the text when I am not - and the scholars to almost everyone agrees with my interpretation - even if they don't agree with the conclusion that Jesus is God. They still see that the passage is not saying that Jesus is not God. Only that it referring to his humanity in this place.
The gospel writers provide many cases of where Jesus is God. Indeed the Gospel of Mark is all about leading the reader to that conclusion. You are intentionally misreading what the gospels and Jesus says about himself. Jesus was a Jew. I never have had a problem with that. Was he a Christian? Not in the sense that we are. We are Christians because we take his name and follow his teachings which he passed onto the disciples. Was he the king of the Jews? Well Pilate thought so. Is he the king of Christians? Absolutely. He now reigns from heaven. Peter and Paul were both Jews as well and they are also both Christians. The Christian religion is really the continuation of the OT Jewish system. The modern day Jewish system is not even the continuation of the OT system. It is in fact a new cult. It may well refer to the OT and to Moses and David - but this is lip service - their entire system today is nothing like the Old. Was Jesus a Jewish rabbi? Yeah I have no issue with that. Was he a Christian priest? Given that Christian priests are a nonsense in the sense of what you are suggesting. All Christians are priests prophets and kings. We don't a priest anymore because Jesus is our eternal high priest. I agree that Jesus was a rightful heir to the throne in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, being so, does not exclude him from being GOD.
As for growing up. LOL@ you. My views are consistent with traditional Christian doctrine. Yours are the figment of your own imagination. You stand alone - you have no one who agrees with you on this site - let alone in scholarly or biblical academia or networks. Prove me wrong. Give us your sources.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Oh goody goody, the class clown has finally turned up red in the face from hiding in the dark hoping against hope that no one would ask him a question.
A couple of things before we start on the topic - which you incidentally started and flummoxed. Your clumsiness on this topic of yours was well and truly established before my discussion on the other topic. I have not run away from you - there is no point. In fact I have to restrain myself everytime you write something because it is so foolish and easy to refute. Note even here on this post I had to raise it the top of the forum and then remind you of it again and again. 8 days I had to wait - if I don't respond to yours within 5 minutes you are ready and waiting to call me a runaway. Your hypocrisy is amusing. Me choosing not to debate you in a debate is a matter of principle. I have also given you an opportunity to demonstrate that you have some intellectual honesty at which point I am happy to debate you. At the moment however, while you remain unable to admit any concessions, it won't happen. There is no point to having a debate with someone who cannot even admit when they get it wrong. And if you never get it wrong - there is no point in discussing things with you in a debating forum.
Here it is simply a forum - people can add to it - and see things - and take it as they like - I am content with that. It also demonstrates that I am not running away - but am intent on continuing the conversation.
Now back to the topic: "when will the hypocrisy of the catholic church ever end?"
You raised the subject of the pope appointing woman to a position in the Vatican as ungodly, because you say the Bible teaches that woman are second class citizens and do not go to heaven.
I disagreed with that statement on numerous levels - none of which you have actually addressed. I referred to various woman in the OT and in the NT where woman had been placed by God into positions of power and authority. I further referred to a specific passage in Timothy where criteria for females are listed to evaluate suitable female candidates for ministry. You chose to ignore these - interestingly, even suggesting that because there are rules for slavery in the bible that God condones slavery. This by the way is not a discussion about slavery. I used abolition of slavery alongside woman's rights as two things that the church and the bible has been at the forefront of raising as significant good things. (If you want to debate slavery - start another topic don't fill this one up going down rabbit holes)
Therefore, I'll make this quick to save you any further embarrassment. In January of 2020, Pope Francis named the FIRST, and I repeat, the FIRST woman to a managerial position in the Vaticans most important office, the Secretariat of State! I ask you, where were woman in the Hell bound Catholic church BEFORE the Pope enacted this position? NOWHERE as the embarrassing thread below so states:
Not appointing females to a top managerial position and then doing so for the first time is something that should be admired and championed not ridiculed. Especially by someone like you who actually thinks females should be in the top job. Yours is a strawman argument. The church as a whole does not believe that females should not be in managerial positions. The catholic church might object to a female pope (although history reveals there has been a female pope) but not placing someone in a particular role does not logically mean that they should not many other significant and meaningful roles. I note that the catholic church would not put a protestant male into the role of pope either. Or a male Muslim - or a Gay man either (although again history does reveal some wonderful conundrums for the Vatican).
Despite not addressing my discussion points you then attempt to write a narrative that the bible puts females down. From the beginning you twist things by omitting significant points and then drawing conclusions to rewrite your own narrative and message.
Jesus, as our Triune serial killer Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, from the beginning made it known that since Eve transgressed FIRST in eating the forbidden fruit in the Creation narrative, then Jesus cursed her by the following biblical axiom: JESUS SAID TO THE FIRST WOMAN EVE: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:12).Since Jesus stated that Adam, as the superior man, was to rule over Eve, then she became a 2nd class citizen and the rest is history!
This an example of your twisting. God never said that Adam was superior. You simply insert into the narrative. You omit that God cursed Adam for scapegoating Eve. Eve in the Genesis narrative comes from Adam's side, the symbolism is clear - they are equal. Side by Side. If God has made Eve from his toe then you might have something to work with - but God made them equal. To be companions - side by side. Not egalitarian necessarily, probably complementarian. And for the record, the words here reveal that IT IS A CURSE - I don't think that is meant to be a good thing. This implies that God did not think it best for the man to rule over the woman - which incidentally contradicts your entire premise about God not wanting woman in heaven. (Notwithstanding the entire argument that the Garden of Eden is symbolically heaven in the first place -and that God placed both Male and Female into heaven - another supreme example of the bible contradicting your warped views about the bible)
SECOND CLASS CITIZEN DEFINITION: someone who is not given the same rights as other people. Well, this definition certainly describes the women in Jesus' JUDEO-Christian Bible to the letter, praise!
Where does this definition come from? There are many people in the world who are not given the same rights as everyone else. This does not make them a second class citizen per se. For instance I do not have the same right as a female to enter the female toilets. Not only would it be sick to insist upon such a right - but there are good reasons for females to have rights that men do not have. I also have the right to enter my home and enjoy peace. You do not become a second hand citizen because I refuse to let you enter my home. And the fact is you don't have this same right. Do gays have the right to call themselves heterosexuals? Do I have the right to walk into the White House? Or is it the fact that me not being allowed to do so make me a second hand citizen? I think your definition is flawed. Perhaps you should try and find a real one.
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)
“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.” (1 Peter 3:1-2)
“Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18)
Your usage of these three verses as above omits the context and attempts to rewrite the narrative in accordance with your warped position which is contradicted by the rest of the Bible. None of these words actually put a female in an inferior position in society. I explained the first verse above in my previous post. You have not refuted that point yet. The second verse actually demonstrates that the female has the power to changer her husband with her conduct. This is hardly an inferior position - but one that gives her power- power to stay or power to go - the choice is hers depending upon what is best for her and her children and the relationship. The third verse contains that qualification which is certainly implied in all of the other verses if not stated explicitly - :"as is fitting to the Lord". If the husband is not seeking God honoring requests, then they are not in the Lord and as such she has the right to leave or not to do them. Submission in the bible by the way does not mean OBEDIENCE. If it did then where Paul says to "submit one to another" it would mean that everyone had to obey each other. This makes no sense. It clearly has a different meaning. The word used for submission in English in the Greek is often the word peitho. This words means "to persuade". And it is the same meaning it has in other contexts - for example in a court room, lawyers make submissions to the judge. He or she seeks to persuade the judge that their position needs to be considered. In the same way wives submit their concerns to the husband who is ultimately responsible before God for the decisions that he, his wife and all members of their household make.
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15)Your comical quote to the passage above was "The second verse relates specifically to a service in a synagogue. The silence is not absolute either - for woman are commanded to sing - obviously not silent - and to pray - again - obviously not silent." All of these entities that you have given are showing women to be 2nd class, HELLO? Singing and praying ARE NOT teaching man, get it? Huh? :(
Well at least you have tried to engage a little bit. good for you.
I have seen churches argue the case that females should not teach adult men. Personally I am not opposed to that idea - but it is an irrelevant argument for your position that woman are not allowed in heaven. Similarly for the other verses you quote above. And let us be very clear for the sake of the argument - let us assume that each of these verses are understood perfectly by you in your distorted and perverse manner - none of them give even a hint that females won't go to heaven. At the high point of your argument if taken as agreed - these woman are looked down upon. But this has nothing to do with going to heaven. Remember in God's perspective - EVERYONE - male, female, white, black, brown, educated or not, wealthy or poor, ALL HAVE sinned and fall short of his standards. In his perspective no one deserves to go heaven. Your point does not go even close to revealing how bad the situation is. IT is not just woman - it is every white male. Including the pope who does not deserve to go to heaven,
Let us have that discussion. Tell me why God should LET anyone into heaven. That is a far better question. And once we have answered that one - perhaps we can revisit females.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Timothy wrote:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5
Hi Stephen, Thanks for drawing that to my attention. Thank you also for drawing your own conclusions about my intentions. DO you want me to explain it or do you simply want me to read it as it reads, which by the say is perfectly in accord with my theology and Christian theology. One thing this passage is NOT saying is that Jesus is not a god or God. It however is saying there is ONE GOD. Christians take the view that GOD here is the Trinity. Christians also by the way and I know you know this because I have said it many times, Jesus is Fully man. This is one reason why I would never say that Jesus is the Trinity or even the OT God per se.
Christ Jesus was and is a Man. And as a Man he was and is the only one capable of being the mediator between God and Man. Christians do not take the view that Christ as fully God was the mediator. That would be to bring God down. It would be absurd. God cannot die - but man can. Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This is Christian teaching and what the bible clearly indicates.
So Jesus here is not a god according to Timothy, but simply a messenger/mediator. But no doubt Tradesecret will now attempt to rewrite the scripture, redefine words and put words into the mouth of Timothy .........
No, I just responded in accordance to the teaching I had - about Jesus - not wanting to put him into boxes like you.
...........and JamesJames 2:19 — Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Another great verse. I believe in ONE GOD. And this verse confirms that belief is not restricted to believers.
and JohnJohn 17:3 — And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Another great verse- The gospel story is about GOD and it is also about Jesus. You need to demonstrate that everytime the bible talks about Jesus it is always talking about him as a man and never as GOD. Christians talk about both things. Jesus is Fully GOD as Philippians 2:6 indicates and Jesus is fully man as Timothy relates which you quoted above and I would say also in the verse here as well. You need to remember that Christians do believe that Jesus was fully man - so finding verses which indicate this support them - not hinder them. As I said it is not the verses which confirm he was a man that you should be running to - it is the verses which clearly confirm he is God that you should be focusing on. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word WAS God. He WHO is in nature GOD, humbled himself and became a servant, even a man. (Clearly that verse demonstrates Jesus was something other than a man - the question is what? - the text clearly says God)
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
So, what you are saying relative to the Trinity Doctrine is simply, there are three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. The Son was begotten by the Father, but existed before He was begotten. Christ is just as old as his Father, and the Father is just as young as his Son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but He is of the same age as the other two!
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
This is the Nicene Creed. It explains it better than I do. Please note the underlined bits.
First, ONE GOD. NOT THREE GODS. ONE GOD in three persons.
The Son is eternally begotten - and the Spirit is a person we worship.
One God three persons. All co-equal. All separate and yet all ONE GOD.
To further the Godly Triune premise in your way of thinking, then the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Ghost is Almighty, but yet there are not three Almighty's but one Almighty. It is plainly seen that we have three Almighty's, and at the same time, one Almighty. You inform us that obviously the three persons in the Trinity are co-eternal together and coequal. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Ghost is eternal, and yet there are not three eternally, but one eternal. The plain English is, that the three entities in the Trinity are three eternally, and individually considered, and yet they are not three eternally, but one eternal!
Therefore, am I correct to your way of thinking above in describing the Triune Doctrine as explicitly shown and in the name of Jesus?Awaiting a cogent reply, thanks.
At least you are attempt to reconcile some of these things thank you. Yet, I am not sure of you logically leap to the conclusion that Jesus is the Trinity. I would not use the name of Jesus to describe the Trinity. Some Christians do. Using the name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. LORD referring the the Father, Jesus to the Son and Christ - meaning anointed one - as the Spirit. I however think that is attempting to use a shoehorn to try and fit what was never meant to be fitted into something which is both simple and complex.
God is a concept which is too complex for humanity to understand fully. The Trinity is a doctrine which has caused the best of minds to argue over. Yet the Bible teaches ONE GOD period. Yet it also teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God - and yet they not the same. Hence we in accordance with the way best try and understand - ONE GOD, three members or three persons. I would take the view that to say that anyone of these members are the TRINITY in their own right is going just a step to far. Hence why I reject at first blush the notion that Jesus is the Trinity. He is certainly is part of the Trinity - and the Trinity cannot be the Trinity without the Son.
Sometimes I liken the Trinity to the tension between the one and the many that exist in our world. Because I am a lawyer, I like to link things to human rights. One one hand, there exists the individuals right to own guns. On the other hand there is the communities right to be safe. Now in my mind these things do not need to be at odds with each other - but for many people they are. Similarly, the political tension between the individualism of personal rights verses the rights of the whole. This we have seen lots lately with the pandemic. the right not to wear a mask verses the right for the community to be safe. In my mind these tensions don't have to be tensions - they can be resolved.
And the interesting thing - is very often theses rights are - either pragmatically or on a balance resolved to a acceptable level. Not to say that either side does not want more and won't continue to ask for more. But we can live with these rights and the tension without going into a head spin. Is the right of the individual more significant than the community or is the rights of the community more significant than the individual?
The Trinity holds a tension for most along similar lines - the notion of the ONE GOD - verses three members. In the Bible - it always clearly talks about ONE GOD and yet it refers to GOD in each of the three members at various times. It is not a strict Aristotelian / Platonism logical conclusion. It is more of the water logic variety - which incidentally springs not from the West but the East. Yet it works quite well in Asian and Eastern circles - it causes no particular tension in the brain like it does for the West.
Anyway this has been a good discussion - thanks.
Created: