Total posts: 3,520
-->
@Stephen
Jesus is God. The OT God is God.So Jesus is the god of the Old Testament, known to many theist as Jehovah/Yahweh? That is a yes or no question.[the OT ]God is more complex than you want him to be.He is very complex isn't he? As are all paranoid, narcissistic, schizophrenic megalomaniacs, that kill for the hell of it. Quite the contrast to the turn the other cheek, meek as a lamb "saviour" known to us and the Romans as Jesus the Jew , King of the Jews.
When you want to discuss things civilly then perhaps we can have a go at it. I know you are asking a yes or no question and I am refusing to give one. I know what a leading question is - one where the question asks for either a yes or no. So that you can lead me down a direction that is really a trap that you have set. But I am not being cross examined in court or on this forum. Asking open ended questions are a better way of trying to get information out of someone. Oh yes, the only reason lawyers ask leading questions in a court is because they know the answer in the first place. Lawyers that ask questions they don't know the answer to are bad lawyers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Hi Ludofl3x,
I think that is a great question. I think it depends upon why we read the bible in the first place.
I don't read the bible to find good bits or bad bits. I don't search the bible to find solutions to non-Christian's questions.
I read the Bible to help me love God better and so that I can love others 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. I ask myself in those parts - which typically are the most repulsive to our modernist culture, why God did something that seems harsh or difficult to understand from my cultural eyes. And if it is a story about how the characters in the bible did something that was awful it makes me reflect upon the sinfulness of man and then perhaps how God will deal with the sin later on. In either account, I know I will learn to love God better and it will also help me to love others better. The latter because probably I will see it as a warning not to the same thing.
The Bible is a book that reflects life in all of its glory. It does not hide the messiness of life. It is a very real book and sometimes hard book. I think that adds to its character and integrity.
I cannot say I hate discussing any passage - because from my perspective all of it is relevant and useful. I think every passage is somehow going to direct us back to Jesus - and that I think is an opportunity to good to miss. You see - I love talking to skeptics because very often they are the ones reading the bible - even though their motivations are to deride it and to destroy it. At least they will discuss it somewhat. Mind you, they come at it with their own perspective and agendas and that very often gets in the road of actually understanding the text and its purpose for inclusion in the text.
But great question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
There's too much unrelated to my post for me to engage your entire reply. It would drag us down too many rabbit trails. Ill just point out the mistaken reduction - I did not suggest owning a Bible was purely due to being born into a culture. I didn't even suggest revering a Bible was solely a cultural phenomenon. I suggested the Bible was sought by Peter because of influences related to "culture, authority figures, etc."...and you agree:I don't think the Bible was picked at random by Peter. I do think he was lead to it by earthly guidance.Yes [...]I don't see any reason for us to disagree on my views presented here. We would certainly disagree on most of the rest of your post, but that would derail the thread. I think there is potential for an interesting discussion so I'll refrain for once in my life. :-)
Ok. I will not disagree with your response - though I reserve the right to if necessary to do so in the future.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus is God. God is a Trinity. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yet Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are together the Trinity not any one of them individually. Jesus is also fully man. Yet the Father, who is God is not man. And the Spirit who is God is not man. "in the whole" conveys the OT God as the Triune God.My word. You just make clap trap up on the hoof, don't you.
Now you are not even being original. Obviously this is a game for you. Go and read the documents from the creeds - they agree with me - and they make these statements - well before I was born.
So you want me to draw a conclusion without thinking?You just cannot go there and we all know why. Jesus as Jehovah/ Yahweh is the serial killer that the Brother has been saying he is all along. The Brother has been shown to be correct . And you are now desperately trying to defend the indefensible with blinding bullshite clap trap above..
I have gone there. I just will not play your game. Jesus is God. The OT God is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Son is God. Yet, the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit. I have also made the claim that the OT GOD is a good and holy God. So there is no reason for me to avoid linking Jesus to the OT God save and except I think the answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. The fact that God is more complex than you want him to be - refutes your entire notion that he is some two dimensional made up image of humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
LOL@ you.
I did not lie - Nor did I make a mistake as to what I learned in respect of the situation at Jerusalem and the escape to Pella. I only had my source incorrect - not the content.
And my source was only wrong so far as it referred to the translator's notes not the content of the author per se. I In other words, it was still in the book on my shelf - accredited to Josephus. If I had used the other sources I referred to such as Eusebius - then this would not even be a discussion. To call this a lie even by mistake is petty and vindictive and mean.
It sounds to me you are more like the picture of the God you see in the OT than the God of the OT is as portrayed by the bible. At least his position is justified -and lawful. You on the other hand are speaking garbage - and the fact is you know it. You so desperately want to believe your own lies. It does not matter that historians and commentators are against you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Then you would have read his piece that I have referred to. So stop with your lies. I don't think I am God - and I do make mistakes. And If I go back and qualify something or if I admit I made a mistake and try and correct it - then that is someone who is prepared to admit his error and try and change it. You on the hand - do not have the intellectual honesty to do this - rather you keep going with your argument despite is absurdity. That is something you have in common with the Brother- pride.
Thanks for the link.
What it does not say is all non-religious know more than all religious. It talks of averages - and tendencies - but does not deal with absolutes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, not at all. I asked a valid question of Peter, and made an educated guess at his answer. He is welcome to correct me if I am wrong.
Fair enough.
Also, for the record, your reply did not address my question as you neglected the implied indoctrination and focused on a limiting (and absurd) reduction of culture (and picking up random books).
I did not address the implied indoctrination because I take the view that indoctrination is inescapable. I do not hold to the view that some people or cultures are unbiased. Everyone believes what they think is true - otherwise they would think something else. And since everyone thinks they are correct in their worldview, even though most would espouse that they are not perfect and make mistakes they would still continue to promote their views all the same. It does not matter which culture or worldview this is how it is.
I also don't think my notion reduced culture absurdly or otherwise. In America indeed as it is throughout the world in Western Nations specifically, they are melting pots of cultures. By their very nature - most of these nations have removed the bible and Christian influence from schools - and most homes, even Christian homes don't have a bible. 50 years ago this was not the case - but it certainly is the case now. And many people don't necessarily read the bibles well enough to understand it. Many people call themselves - Christian - mostly nominally. And they certainly don't put their religion ahead of their current culture.
When people then suggest that the reason I have a bible is because I was born into this culture - I do see it as cop out. It is our culture which unlike most other cultures has a tolerance of other religions. It is our culture which believes in principle in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It therefore is just as likely that we will pick up a Koran or Marx's book or Hitler's book as we are a bible. In fact probably now bibles are less in vogue. I saw the NYT suggest that the bible burning recently was because it was good for kindling. The fact is - go to another culture in the world and it is very likely you won't get a bible. Only one book - supporting whatever dogma or political system is the primary one in power. It is only in the West - that it is more likely than not that you will have available other books - which is ironic. That the very book which provided for the freedoms we enjoy - will in fact probably be the first book to be burned permissibly for kindling to set up a fire for the American flag.
I don't think the Bible was picked at random by Peter. I do think he was lead to it by earthly guidance.
Yes, but if also picked up another book - it would be for the same reason - and if he was in another country - he would not be able to pick up a bible. Not unless it had been totally censored.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Waiting! 8 days
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tradesecret, Debate Runaway and Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, and that cannot answer my posts 244 and 248, other than to run away from them,YOUR QUOTE AFTER BEING SCHOOLED AGAIN BY THE BROTHER D: “Don’t pull my quote out of context.”Your quote in question: “Nevertheless, because God is Trinity - whom I see in the whole as the God presented in the OT, it is incorrect to simply try and identify Jesus as the same. Jesus is God - but Jesus is not the Trinity.”
Let me write very slowly for you. I don't want to go to fast just in case you miss what I am saying. Jesus is God. God is a Trinity. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yet Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are together the Trinity not any one of them individually. Jesus is also fully man. Yet the Father, who is God is not man. And the Spirit who is God is not man. "in the whole" conveys the OT God as the Triune God.
In your quote above is what you exactly stated word for word, of which I broke it down as shown in my response, period. Now, if you have changed your mind because subsequent to REREADING your Satanic word-salad mumbo-jumbo, you got embarrassed, as you should be, then tell us what you thought you meant. Or, if you want to change your quote in any way, tell us what you now want it to mean! LOL!
I have not changed my mind - this is what Christianity teaches because this is what the Bible teaches. It is not Satanic mumbo jumbo but the tradition of the church.
MOST IMPORTANTLY; HOW CAN ANY PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE YOU STATE IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER THAT JESUS IS NOT THE TRINITY AS YOU STATED IN YOUR QUOTE IN NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE REFERS TOO???! HOW?! TELL US! WE’RE WAITING!
Apart from the fact that it is you who are the pseudo -christian, it is not difficult to understand. Jesus is not the Trinity. He is one of the members of the Trinity. Yet by himself he is not the Trinity. In case you do not understand English and the word trinity - it means three and it refers to the collective three. Think of it as parliament for want of a better illustration - every member of parliament is a politician but none can them selves parliament individually. In fact if one member stood up and said I am Parliament - the rest of parliament would shut the individual down - or the country itself would be in uproar. The point is - the Trinity is the collective of the three members of the Godhead. Hence Jesus as an individual cannot be the Trinity. It simply is mixing the one up with the many and that is absurd.
Upon the Trinity Doctrine and to correct you once again, the three entities that make up the Triune Doctrine are two persons, and a spirit. You keep stating that the Triune is 3 persons, where a “spirit” cannot be a human person! Get it Bible fool?
LOL! @ your attempt to be funny. Trinity refers to three - three persons or three members. The Holy Spirit is a person. This is the tradition of the church and it is what Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Charismatics all mean. Only perhaps do the JW take a different view. The Father is also a Spirit. And indeed the Son was prior to his incarnation. God is spirit and God is invisible. In fact that was my point I was making before your fell in a heap referring the bodily and human side of Jesus.
YOUR REVEALING WIMPY QUOTE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS YOUR COMPLETE BIBLE IGNORANCE, THEREFORE YOU WANT ME TO STAY AWAY FROM IT! LOL! : “It was not directed to you. And as such I don't need a response from you.”As usual, you’re wrong again in that your biblical ignorance and stupidity is given to everyone to read within this forum, and especially Jesus the Christ sees it as well (Hebrews 4:13). Therefore, it has to be addressed in the name of Jesus no matter if it is addressed to anyone specifically or not, get it Bible fool?
While it is true that when people post on this forum, it is a public post and as such people respond to others all the time. I accept that. Yet, not every one does so with the same vitriol and venom that you do. Most people at least try and understand properly without trying to pull something out of context.
I am proud for Jesus to see my words. I don't have anything to hide. Yet your pseudo Jesus - the one you claim to represent is a moron. He is a figment of your imagination - and exists only in the cracks in your skull. And the fact that you to carry on in the manner you do is laughable - and well sad and pathetic. Still it is your choice to do so.
Jesus’ inspired words states with specificity that a TRUE Christian like myself is to defend the faith, and when I see you continually step in the proverbial poo again, and again, and again, and again, in the name of Satan relative to Jesus’ inspired LITERAL words, I have to call you out relative to your outright Devil Speak, understood? Jesus expects nothing less.
LoL!
YOUR EVER SO COMICAL AND REVEALING QUOTE: “I don't have to put up with your abuse. So why don't you go and do something else.”Oh, boo hoo, whimper, whimper, sniff sniff, poor little Tradesecret is crying in front of the membership because he has been easily shown to be the #1 Bible ignorant pseudo-christian on DEBATEART, and he doesn’t like to be shown this blatant fact! :(.... Brother D. hands Tradesecret a Kleenex, *sniff sniff.*I am instructed by none other than Jesus’ inspired words to defend the faith against totally Bible inept pseudo-christians like you. Therefore, who am I to state that Jesus is wrong in this respect? Can I help it if you continue to spew forth your Devil Speak that needs to be addressed in the Name of Jesus? NO! You are the one doing this ungodly action, and therefore you have to accept the consequences!
You are instructed by no one else apart from your own self and pride. Blah blah blah
Jesus' rules that I have to follow when defending the faith at your continued expense:"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5)YOUR QUOTE, WHERE IF FOLLOWED, WILL ONLY PILE MORE PROVERBIAL EGG UPON YOUR FACE: “If you want me to address you - go and find the Catholic topic you put up and respond to my post which I wrote 7 days ago and which you are constantly avoiding and running away from.Barring the FACT that you can’t address me biblically, and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath because of your Satanic biblical ignorance and stupidity, do you really want me to show you to be the continued religionist fool in my Catholic thread a well? I was giving you some time to heal within this thread before I easily blotted you out in the Catholic thread!Tradesecret, as embarrassingly and blatantly seen in your sophomoric post #250, which is an overwhelmingly terse little boy response, you no more can address my post #244 and #248 anymore than you can get out of being sent to the sulfur lakes of Hell upon your earthly demise because of committing the Unpardonable Sin. You did this by calling Jesus' spirit a LIAR to His direct and literal words in John 10:34-36! Remember? You actually had the audacity to say that what Jesus DIRECTLY and LITERALLY stated in said passage, was not what He stated! This is one of your most comical and ungodly responses that you have ever made! LOL!Therefore your performance within this thread is so embarrassing, not only to you, but I am sure the membership as well that is watching you RUNAWAY from debating me on the TRUE modus operandi of the Bible Jesus, the running away from my posts numbers 244 and 248 directed to your biblical ignorance and Bible rewrites, and you blatantly committing, without question, the Unpardonable Sin!RUN TRADESECRET, KEEP RUNNING AWAY BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT YOU ARE GOOD AT! LOL!
It is pointless trying to engage with you. So unless you are prepared to respond - say to that post on the Catholic church - dont bother.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I thought I would raise this topic to the top of the forum again. Just to remind you that you should stop RUNNING away. LOL!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Oh Stephen, get over yourself - two lines ago you were DIRECTLY asking me what I think. You were asking me is Jesus Jehovah.You really are a sly one. I am not asking you what you "think". I have asked is Jesus Jehovah.? The truth is that you dare not directly identify Jesus as also being the OT god Jehovah from the beginning because that god -Jehovah aka YHWH, was a murdering psychopath that has murdered and distinguished life for something as simple as a wager and in doing so, this makes the Brothers claim that Jesus as god Jehovah aka YHWH, was a serial murderer and a killer of innocent children.
So you want me to draw a conclusion without thinking? Is that how you do things is it? LOL! Why do you keep saying I do not dare identify Jesus as being the OT God? I have repeated myself numerous times - saying the exact opposite. What part of that don't you understand? I think - yeah I know you have a problem with that concept - that the OT GOD is a good and a holy God. I reject your conclusion - which obviously you got from not thinking about it, that God is a murdering psychopath. I admire the OT God described in the Bible. He has my respect. He always acts justly and righteously - and his name deserves to be praised to the highest heavens. Can you read these words? Unlike you, I have not fallen privy to taking things out of context. I can see the bigger picture here - which you cannot see. This is why your assertion that I don't want to identify Jesus with OT God is so absurd. If I could simply say yes, I would. I would jump at the opportunity. Yet, I also have some intellectual honesty that I wish to maintain. It is not a simple yes or no. The fact is the Christian GOD is Trinity. You keep say I am dodging the question - and yet all I am doing is attempting to answer the question correctly and in doing so - keeping my understanding of Jesus and the Trinity consistent.
should I care what you think?That is down to you sunshine. But none of your bullshit changes the fact that is all that you have done is prove the Brother to be correct.
LOL - you must have a very warped understanding of what arguments are, how they are validated and what proof is. I guess that does explain some of the loony ideas you put on this forum. It is not like you follow any consistent scientific process of argumentation. You just make stuff up as you go along.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Interesting discussion.
I think that the nature of the religious person often demonstrates whether it was conditioning, culture, or perhaps something else that created the way people turn out.
In Christian circles and I suspect in other circles as well there is often a distinction between children born into the faith of their parents and their own ownership of the same faith. It is true that Christians and I suspect other circles as well desire to see their children continue in their faith they were brought into - but also recognise that unless there is ownership of it personally, then the faith will not be as strong as it ought to be.
I think this probably applies in other types of society as well. This is one reason that the educationalists like to have as much say over children from as young an age as possible. They know that if they get a kid from 7 years of age - they can get them for life. I think one reason there is a strong increase of people in non-religious views these days is because the school system is educating religion out of people. If we got rid of public schools, religious numbers would increase. And this is not because education is bad for religion - in fact religions love education - it is the type of education that begins with a different worldview.
I think some of the studies that reflect that the Left are more likely to be non-religious and more highly educated are misleading. It is undoubtedly true on raw stats. Yet it is misleading because it assumes that the religious are therefore less likely to be able to discern between good and bad politics - or between good and bad thinking. Yet the reality is that most religious folk are quite educated - not necessarily with higher degrees or even a college degree. And many churches - at least the ones I have been involved within - contain quite successful business persons - large and small, they contain large numbers of tradies - people who are concerned with largely practical matters - but nonetheless are making significant decisions and reasoning in quite complex manners everyday - and what is more - are very wealthy. Interestingly in the past previous three churches I have been involved with in three separate cities - the leading medical and legal practitioners have also been quite involved at the churches.
It might be true that the more educated in college degrees and post graduates - the less you are going to be religious - yet - if the colleges are essentially churches or seminaries for the secular this would not be surprising. In fact I would be surprised if it were not the case. This is one reason I think that college and universities and indeed EVERY school should not be publically funded. ALL education facilities should be totally funded by those who attend and or by private beneficiaries - who support the primary culture of those facilities. Then - the market would determine our politics and religion more justly not those in positions with agendas that they mostly can run with because the taxman is paying for it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So you agree with me then?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, why are you so obnoxious? I actually don't tell lies.And now you are not only lying but you have avoided this direct question altogether. And we all know why. You are a fraud who wants it both ways.
LOL @ Stephen. Because I wont play your game, I am lying and a fraud? Surely you jest. I answered your question. Again not in the way you like - but I answered.
You asked whether Jesus was Jehovah.Yes I have haven't I ? But you have skirted this question and now avoided it like a plague altogether.
Well if you were going to be honest, you know you are lying. I have answered you. I certainly have not avoided it. I merely said the answer is more complex than yes or no.
I think the name Jehovah is an incorrect understanding of the real name of the Lord in the OT.I am not interested in what you think. You are a coward that is simply trying to get out of a very tight spot.
Oh Stephen, get over yourself - two lines ago you were DIRECTLY asking me what I think. You were asking me is Jesus Jehovah. Now you don't care what I think. So do you care or not care? You can't have it both ways.
I think it is not correct to identify Jesus with Jehovah or YHWH in a simple yes or not response.Either Jesus is or is not Jehovah of the OT . Again, you are just skirting the issue and offering excuses why you cannot answer the question. But you will say that Jesus is god from the beginning, the Alpha & Omega the beginning and the end, now and always. And to add to that, you are telling us that Jesus is and was the ONLY god to have existed!
Oh so you do care what I think. I was beginning to wonder what you were expecting? Ok - you want an answer. Jesus is not Jehovah as understood in the OT. Jesus was not born in the OT times. Yet the Son of God is eternal from all eternity. And the Son is the second person of the Trinity. The Son of God added to his divinity humanity at the birth or conception of Jesus. And you really should not tell lies. I have said and it above in my other posts that there is ONE GOD. I said that the ONE GOD is the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I said that there is ONE GOD yet three persons. I said the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Father is not the Holy Spirit. I have never ever said that Jesus is and was the only GOD to have ever existed. yet it is quite true that Jesus is God. And there is one God. But God is not just one person. God is three.
The truth is that you dare not directly identify Jesus with the OT god Jehovah because that god -Jehovah aka YHWH, was a murdering psychopath that has murdered and distinguished life for something as simple as a wager and in doing so, this makes the Brothers claim that Jesus as god Jehovah aka YHWH, was a serial murderer and a killer of innocent children.
I don't have an issue with linking Jesus with the OT God. Where in the world and why would you think otherwise? I don't hold to the revising of the OT God as you do - so I don't have an issue with the OT understanding of God. The God of the OT is a loving God - yet he is also a holy God. He is merciful towards generations and generations and only ever judges someone in accordance with the Law and justly. He never killed anyone or sentenced anyone to death unlawfully. He is not a murdering pychopath - and you nor your Brother have demonstrated otherwise. You can prattle on all you like and repeat yourself - but these things don't make something true.
IMO Jesus would be appalled that a whole new religion has sprung up in his name. He would have called it blasphemy, I'm sure.
Well fantastic for you - just wondering - should I care what you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ok I can live with that response - but it still does not mean that because a Christian happened to be born in the West that he is simply one because of the culture he was born into.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
I have not rewritten history. I was referring to information I had been taught - and so I have gone back to find my sources. I note a couple of things.
It was not Josephus who indicated what I mentioned. I was speaking from memory and I was wrong. However, I knew there was a connection to Josephus although it was only his translator, William Whiston, note b in Josephus War of the Jews , 2:19:6, p. 631-2.
Secondly, I have added a link from Wikapedia - for whatever it is worth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella, which notes that I am not making it up or attempting to lie. This link however expresses that there is significant debate about its validity. It does however reveal that I am NOT trying to rewrite history - but was rather using information I had been provided from a couple of different sources. It is also true that Eusebius referred to it in his works: “The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella.” Ecclesiastical History, tr. C. F. Crusè, 3d ed., in Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, 6 vols. (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1842), p. 110 (3:5).
Also the following from the early years of the church made similar claims.
Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (315 – 403 AD)
“The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe. That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged” (Panarion 29:7:7-8).
“Their sect began after the capture of Jerusalem. For when all those who believed in Christ settled at that time for the most part in Peraea, in a city called Pella belonging to the Decapolis mentioned in the gospel, which is next to Batanaea and the land of Bashan, then they moved there and stayed” (Panarion 30:2:7).
Remigius, Bishop of Reims (437 – 533 AD)
“The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe. That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged” (Panarion 29:7:7-8).
“Their sect began after the capture of Jerusalem. For when all those who believed in Christ settled at that time for the most part in Peraea, in a city called Pella belonging to the Decapolis mentioned in the gospel, which is next to Batanaea and the land of Bashan, then they moved there and stayed” (Panarion 30:2:7).
Remigius, Bishop of Reims (437 – 533 AD)
[1] “[F]or on the approach of the Roman army, all the Christians in the province, warned, as ecclesiastical history tells us, miraculously from heaven, withdrew, and passing the Jordan, took refuge in the city of Pella; and under the protection of that King Agrippa, of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles, they continued some time; but Agrippa himself, with the Jews whom he governed, was subjected to the dominion of the Romans” [Thomas Aquinas (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels; Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. (J. H. Newman, Ed.) (Vol. 1, p. 799-816)].
I don't care that you don't believe it is true about the Christians fleeing to Pella from Jerusalem. What I do care about is that you continue to spout lies that I am making stuff and changing history. These people are not me. This tradition has been around for many years before I was born.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Don't pull my quote out of context. It was not directed to you. And as such I don't need a response from you. I don't have to put up with your abuse. So why don't you go and do something else. If you want me to address you - go and find the Catholic topic you put up and respond to my post which I wrote 7 days ago and which you are constantly avoiding and running away from.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The key lesson of Animal Farm is that loyal police dogs and a good lie are all you need to live a long and happy life.
Nuh. The key lesson in Animal Farm is that hierarchy is inescapable. There are always going to be someone in your life telling you what to do.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Do you happen to oppose liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism??
I oppose fascism. I oppose Nazism. I oppose Marxism and Anarchism.
The first three are proponents of big government - the latter - proponents of delusion.
Probably I fit more within the Libertarian definition of politics - yet I take the view it is neither LEFT nor RIGHT.
Right Wing and Left Wing political systems are both advocates of BIG Government. In both systems, despite their rhetoric, they are beasts of control and manipulation. Saying all the have the same rights is not the same as giving everyone the same. Egalitarian thought - or Liberal thought - basically comes down to either what do the majority think is good or what do some people in some back room think is good.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
No you haven't stop telling lies. I have asked you is Jesus Jehovah? You are avoiding answering this question direct and honest because you know that it would put Jesus in the frame for millions of innocent deaths! As I keep telling you, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.Jesus was not a god. Jesus was a rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem. He was a very human King of the Jews NOT Christians. All kings of Jerusalem were called `sons of god'.
Stephen, why are you so obnoxious? I actually don't tell lies. Not intentionally anyway - which means by definition I don't tell lies since by definition a lie has to be by intention. I In other words, it is impossible to tell lies accidentally. Just because I don't want to play your game, does not mean I am lying or that I am avoiding your question. Surely you don't live in a two dimensional world where the only answer is a simplistic one? I don't hold to the view that the world is simple. In other words, I don't have a left wing progressive view. Nor am I am conservative of a right wing disposition.
You asked whether Jesus was Jehovah. I think the name Jehovah is an incorrect understanding of the real name of the Lord in the OT. I have stated this before but you keep asking if I think Jesus is Jehovah. I seem to recall you got rather upset a while ago because I called you Steve or something like that. Why? Because your name means something to you. Yet like the hypocrite you are - you continue the charade that you actually care.
I think it is not correct to identify Jesus with Jehovah or YHWH in a simple yes or not response. As I said in my previous post - it is not that simple. Yet, your response reveals an interesting prejudice and bias which I find quite amusing. You actually think I am avoiding such a connection because "it would put Jesus in the frame for millions of innocent deaths!". Are you for real? I have no such view and your position is wrong. I have indicated even to you quite recently that I think the OT picture of God is Holy. He never kills anyone who is innocent. And whether you link the OT to Jesus or not does not change my view. Do you even see your prejudice a little bit?
Wow! I am of the view that Jesus is God. The book of Philippians 2:1-11 clearly indicates that he is God as do other places in the OT and the NT. Paul's entire argument in relation to humility is based on the fact of God humbling himself. The passage makes no sense unless Jesus is GOD. The Christian position is that GOD is Trinity. I don't particularly care if you don't understand or believe in the Trinity - but the Christian Church does. It is one of the hallmarks that sets Christianity apart from EVERY other religion. No other religion including the ancient ones - has an understanding of God like the Trinity of the Christian church. Yes, other religions have a semblance of one - but it does not even come close. And to pretend that they are close is nonsense and intellectual dishonest in the extreme.
Nevertheless, because God is Trinity - whom I see in the whole as the God presented in the OT, it is incorrect to simply try and identify Jesus as the same. Jesus is God - but Jesus is not the Trinity. Nor is the Father or the Holy Spirit. The three together constitute the Holy Trinity. ONE God - three persons, not parts, but persons.
In regards to the character of the GOD of the OT, God is holy and just. He is totally lawful and just in accordance with his own laws and rules - since he is not under jurisdiction of anyone but his own holy character. For you to attempt to bring even one charge against the God of the OT, you need to be able to have standing to do so. What standing do you propose that you have and under what jurisdiction do you propose to insist that you have standing? And furthermore, let's pretend for a moment that you have both standing and jurisdiction, on what power do you rely upon to exercise any ruling you might actually succeed upon?
It is one of the most pointless exercises in the history of humanity to attempt to bring a charge against God. And yet it seems you spend your time - or at least quite a large amount of it doing just that. The bible on the other hand is quite clear to most people who read it. It is quite simple really. God made the world including humanity. Humanity chose to rebel against God and was justly punished. Game over. And yet even at this point, God, not man decided to execute his eternal plan to assist all humans prepared to repent of their treason against him. This still amazes me. Humanity already on death row - no question of their guilt at all - and God in his mercy and grace still despite the fact that most of humanity hates him - to save some anyway. What strikes me Stephen is that you find this repugnant. For me the amazement is staggering.
I don't see the issue with God knowing all things. Yes, if I want to believe that God cruelly did it- I still have to explain all of the loving and kind things that happen everyday as well. Why is it that people see God knowing the future as cruel but omit the kind and loving things that occur as well? To suggest that God is cruel - is inconsistent with these things. These lovely and kind things prove the lie of the God is cruel picture.
In relation to your argument that every king of Israel is called Son of God, I say prove it. If for instance I find one king of Israel who was not called Son of God, does that prove you wrong? And I certainly hope you would not be foolish enough to rely upon an argument from silence. Yet, what you fail to realise that even if every king of Israel is called the Son of God - this does not logically prevent Jesus from being GOD. How about you prove the point? It is quite logically possible that a proper heir of the throne of David could not only be called the Son of God as a title - but in fact be the TRUE SON of GOD. To say otherwise is something that you need to prove.
It seems your argument at the moment is as follows: please correct me if I am wrong: Jesus is a son of David. (You seem to accept this fact) He is called the Son of God. (You also seem to accept this fact) yet because you say (this is yet to be established) that every true heir to the throne of David is entitled to the title of SON of GOD, that the fact Jesus is called the Son of God means nothing more than he was the legitimate heir to the throne of David. Is that correct? Have I understood you properly?
If I have then I do not see why your reasoning could not also appropriate the possibility that the true God of heaven could condescend himself and so enter the family of David to be called both SON of GOD as title and also Son of God as God. Unless you take the view that GOD is unable to become a human being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar.
Don't you think that is a cop out response? True culture plays some part in what book we read - but in a multi-cultural country, the odds of picking up any number of books is pretty good. And if he had picked up - say a book on Marxism which would be a pretty high probability, can we say that such a pick up had any influence?
And I would say yes. What many non-Christians like to say however is that our culture determines our religion - rather than allowing for the possibility that our parents actually considered education and logic and reason as good things - and that because of their influence of such things the child still picked up the bible amongst a whole lot of other books and found that the bible had a lot of reasonable things to say to our culture.
I think it is a form of arrogance to suggest otherwise. A cop out if you like.
My parents encouraged me to read the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Marx, Shakespeare - and the bible. I also read Dawkins and Hawking amongst other books - yet, nothing compares to the Bible. Nothing comes close. One of my parents was atheistic and the other Christian. Both wanted me to have a broad education - hence why I could study law and economics with honors. I loved logic and rhetoric etc. Yes, culturally there was a probability I might pick up the bible - but so what?
I actually came to the bible as an atheist. And I was one of those people who tried to prove it wrong. And yet we here we are. I went from defending crooks in the court room to defending Christians in the forum. Culture can only play a part of this change.
Created:
-->
@Username
Hierarchy is an universal part of all politics. It is inescapable. It is either the society on top or it is the individual. Some one has to be in charge.
Is the preservation of family not a traditional social structure? Is supporting the traditional family over other family models not heirarchical? Is capitalism not a right wing structure?
Of course it is a traditional social structure. It is the fundamental building block of society. Destroy the family and you destroy society. However it is impossible to destroy it - so the Left have done as much as they can to redefine it - so that it is no longer recognizable by the traditional conservative.
Capitalism is not a right wing structure. True, it is not Left wing either - but that is because socialism is both left wing and right wing. The NAZI fascists are socialist. As are the Left wing progressives - the issue is big government - not left wing or right wing per se. Capitalism cannot function in right wing ideology.
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that progressive politics end in elitism. It is no coincidence that the further Left you go, the more anti-elitist and egalitarian you become. The opposite is true with the right. Conservatives want to preserve traditions and heirarchies. As you get further right, you begin to want to enforce these traditions and heirarchies until you eventually reach Fascism. Heirarchy is not a universal feature of politics.
The left is elitism personafied. The next left I meet who does not act and talk like an elitist will be the first one. It is the nature of left wing progressive politics.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You haven't. Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why? Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah. Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.
No I have answered the question. Jesus is God. I have explained this before but for whatever reason you think I am trying to dodge something.
The bible is quite clear. You continue to try or attempt to input into it which it does not say - funny how you seem to gravitate towards some things but avoid completely other places. For example, you narrow in on god being a killer of innocents, yet miss the part where he say he is just. Why do you always omit that part? Easy. Because it contradicts the lies you want to present.
I have never once said that God did not put people to death. I have always maintained that every death God is responsible for directly or by way of delegated authority has been lawful. You on the other hand miss this point or deny it or try and find some way around it because you don't want this to be the case. Because if it were the case then you would be an enormous pickle. Why is it that the Brother could not find an example in the Gospels? Because there was none there. It does not matter how much he wants to believe it is there - it is not there. Jesus was a loving man - a generous man - a forgiving man - a compassionate man - a man loved by the common folk - although despised in general by the religious leaders. Why you find this so repugnant is beyond me?
As I said to the Brother - this picture of Jesus in the Gospels is one that is easy to extend to the rest of the Bible. God in the bible is shown to be holy and just and righteous. He always acts in accordance with holiness and justice and mercy. Yet, you continue to find fault in his character. You look at what you call innocents but reject the bigger picture. You get all teary eyes and horrified because there were probably pregnant woman killed during the flood, yet it would not surprise me at all if you are pro-choice - and have no issue at all if a mother kills her foetus. You would not consider that foetus a victim or vulnerable.
It is people such as yourself who pretend to be so high and mighty that make me sick. And then you have the gall to suggest that I go around in circles. If I had said yes - then you would have gone "aha". If I say it is more complex than this - you go - you did not answer the question. Well Stephen, whatever floats your boat.
I have answered - and you have your answer. It of course is again an answer you don't like - so attempt to slur my character and motivations again. Well at least you have succeeded in getting me to respond in kind. I hope that will help you sleep tonight.
Created:
-->
@Username
What are right-wing/conservative politics if not the preservation of social heirarchy?Or the preservation of traditional social institutions. Argued with ethang5 over this. Really curious how you could define this any differently.
I think there is a misconstrued view by yourself that puts right wing and conservative politics in a catch all bag.
The essence of conservative politics is family.
The essence of progressive politics is society.
The former value family over and above society. The latter value society over and above family.
Note that these positions do not necessarily devalue either family or society - but place a higher value on the one over the other. Hence - all politics is inescapably hierarchical. It really only becomes a question of which hierarchy is going to succeed or not.
Conservative politics at its extreme end is ultimately nationalistic. Hence why race is often cast both negatively by the Left and almost sanctified by the Right.
Progressive politics at its extreme end is ultimately elitist. Hence why progressive education is often touted negatively and almost sanctified as well depending upon who you are.
I take the view that both extremes are evil. Marx and Hitler are the same. Yet the same errors exist even as we move towards the center, just in more diluted forms.
The conservative takes the view - that unless it is broken, we don't need to fix it.
The progressive takes the view - it is broken and can't be fixed so lets do something new.
Both views are in error. The system is not broken. It has problems which need to be and can be fixed. Hence both the conservative and the progressive are in error.
The Conservative typically does not see the problems - it glosses over them. The Progressive only sees the problems and glosses over all of the genuinely good things.
To fix problems - the Conservative does so very slowly - almost to the point of resisting the remedy. The Progressive just cancels everything - and refuses to listen.
Take the gun laws in America. Is the system of guns broken? No, but it has lots of problems - too many people getting killed is just one problem. So what is their remedy. Blame it on the progressives. Blind to the problems - regulation can assist. The progressive on the other hand says- get rid of all guns - guns are evil. But this blindly forgets that guns are useful and actually save lives.
The conservative rests his rights on the family - on individual private rights. The Progressive rests his rights on the society - public rights.
And both rights are held in tension and both are good rights. Whose hierarchy succeeds at any time is always going to be an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I agree that religion is totally irrelevant. And this is what a lot of Christians say as well.Do your fellow Christians agree that being a Christian is irrelevant?I'm glad you and I could find some common ground, Tradesecret. We both see religion as totally irrelevant. The Judas question: why should he repent if he only did what god planned for him to do in order to fulfill his whatever it was?God might have had a plan which was always going to come to pass - but every individual within that plan still has to bear the responsibility of their own actions.This seems cruel: he plans for you to commit whatever acts you're going to commit, then holds you responsible for committing them? An immutable plan means you have no choice but to follow the plan (think of a rat locked in a maze: there's only one way out, the rat can't CHOOSE how to get out). Either it's a plan, or it isn't. Unless you mean we can depart from said plan, which...challenges both omnipotence and omniscience, but allows for free will. In the end, I guess what difference does it make, as religion is completely irrelevant, so long as you're a decent person, even if you denounce Jesus, you're probably going to heaven, according to what you've said. So Judas has to be there. He was a follower of Christ and was only doing as he was made to do.
LOL @ ludofli3x, I never said Christianity was irrelevant. I agree with you that religion is totally irrelevant - and I even qualified that with James 1. In that verse it said that religion is relevant for the welfare of orphans and widows - and I agree with this. I think that religions all over the world - in the main with obvious exceptions do care for the vulnerable. It is only in recent times that non-religious organizations have joined in with this notion. Yet perhaps I ought to qualify further my thoughts. I certainly do not hope that you think I have done more than just open a conversation about this topic. I have more to say as you undoubtedly do.
My point about religion was simple. God does not save someone - or to use other words, people do not get to heaven on the basis of their religion. And if I recall my thoughts at the time correctly, I was also stating that religion was just one thing among many that humans divide themselves with respect too - others including sexuality, sex, intelligence, or education, colour, race, wealth, etc etc. On the day we die - and we stand before Jesus and he says to me "Why should I let you in?" The answers that rely upon a particular division wont jell. Calling myself a Christian wont be enough. Saying I am hetrosexual wont be enough. Saying I have money to pay wont be enough. Saying I am black or I am white wont be enough. Saying I have a Ph.D from Oxford wont be enough. Knowing the five points of Calvinism wont be enough. Being the fast runner on the planet wont be enough. Giving the most donations to help the poor wont be enough. The point is - as I have said above is the issue of treason. This is the issue that had Adam and Eve thrown out of the garden, declared dead from God's family and essentially the entire human race judged and sentenced to a world prison living on death row. Treason is the reason why people won't get into heaven - and this is rightly and justly so. Yet, to repent of that treason - and to trusting in God's son - Jesus is the only way to get into heaven. This is the ordinary means by which God as the king of the universe and heaven enables any to enter his home. Yet who knows what God might do without the ordinary pale of things. This is what he has revealed in his word to us.
Yes, and as for God's plan seeming cruel - I addressed that already. I take the view that is an attempt to find a loophole to avoid owning and being responsible for your own actions. God does have a plan and he does carry that out - but we talk of that plan as one that does not do violence to the human will. Hence we hold two tensions in our heads and we do this fine. I tend to see it more like a book written - a novel. God is the author like Tolkien for instance. He writes his story which obviously is entirely in the hands of the author. Yet, the figures in the book are totally responsible for what they do. No one gets caught and then says - it is not my fault - blame it on the author. No one thinks that Tolkien is cruel - just really clever and a brilliant writer. The difference here is that God is much more creative in his story telling. And the figures he has created in his story have the capacity to know there is an author. Even though with lots of irony - many do not believe there is an author - and still want to blame the author who they don't believe in. It is a cop out of an excuse though. and weak.
If there was no author - then there would be no story - and none of this would matter. At the end of the day - recognizing there is an author is helpful for a whole lot of reasons. I prefer it this way - that God is in total control - but I also recognize the difference between first and second causes and I as I said above have no issue with the tension of God's sovereignty and humanity's full responsibility for their actions.
Your last sentence makes no sense and is inconsistent with my premise. I said religion is irrelevant - I never said treason was not. I tend to think that living a nice life is not enough. Being good in prison - does not mean that you and the governor are on the same page or that he will release you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So lets hear how people reconcile forcing people to wear masks. It's my body and my choice. It is many peoples opinion that aborting human life is murder. The argument in favor of abortion is "My body my choice" If you are wearing a mask and believe you are protected by wearing it, why do I have to wear one? It is your opinion that my not wearing one some how puts your life at risk. I don't want to wear one "My body my choice" Please reconcile. I would like to point out that by deciding to have a baby it does affect other peoples lives so forget that argument.
I read this opening post and I thought - Man i wonder how many this will trigger? And then I read through the posts and I found the responses worse than the religious ones on this site - and then I thought to myself - this is really one of the religious issues of our times.
I think because it is a religious position that therefore it is impossible to reconcile and will not enable constructive or helpful discussion to take place.
People do not really want to think that what they are doing is inconsistent with what they use to justify their own positions typically.
I take the view that "my body, my choice" relies upon a fundamental private property right. It says I own my body. Which if anybody knows anything about property rights and the normal understanding of a bundle of rights - means that I have right to do with my body anyway I like, I can kill fetuses' in my body, I can kill myself. I can use my body like a prostitute - I can have sex whenever I want to - - typically however in economic thinking -and assuming our body is owned by us - is an economic principle - this would assume that we can destroy our own property, buy or sell it or transfer it.
This last word, transfer, harmless at it looks is why EVERY state in the world states that people do not own their own bodies - they say - there is no property in human life. And the reason is simple- transfer as harmless as looks is actually "SLAVERY". We cannot transfer our human body to someone else - we are not allowed to sell our body - except on certain conditions.
This means my friends that the entire argument or premise of "my body my choice" is redundant. The owner of our body is not ourselves - it is the STATE. Now before you keel over and say what a load of rubbish. Who determines whether we slavery is abolished or not? The STATE. Who determines whether abortion is legal or not? The STATE. Who determines whether euthanasia is legal or not? The STATE. Who determines whether we should wear a mask? The STATE. It is not science. It is not religion. It is not us - even if we have no intention of harming someone or not.
We are all owned by the STATE. We do what they say and we will continue to do so - because they tell us so. They own us. We have given them - not even sold them - just given our body to the STATE. And most of us don't even care. That is ok.
And if you disagree with me - that is fine. Totally your prerogative. Just go and break the law and see what happens? Who makes the law? Who enforces the law? Who has to obey the law?
Hence why this question really is a trigger? And why the STATE does not really care?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Does science have a speed? How many fields of science in the world exist today? How fast is any one moving?
And the next question ought to be - moving where? Moving to more understanding? Moving to a better outcome for people? Moving to what in particular?
Progress can move in lots of directions. So it might move fast somewhere - and then it might turn around and advance in a different direction.
Ethics in that sense is therefore an enabler - it enables progress to occur towards a particular direction. But does it prevent it?
And if it does prevent it - does it not just send it in another direction - progressing that way?
I liken it to the so called progressives in today's society. I think the progress of the Left is not progress at all. I think it is regress - a backwards movement. Yet - that is based upon my morality - or my ethics. I think the progressives are simply heading as fast as they can to a great big ditch in history. I would prefer that they did not.
So the question itself is based on many assumptions. Present the assumptions and then perhaps we can discuss further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Jesus did and he still does.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Is Jesus God Jehovah or not?Yes, Jesus is God.Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah?
I thought I had already answered you.
Jesus is fully God. Jesus is fully man. Jesus is the Second Member of the Holy Trinity. Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Son. Jesus is the Son of God. Is his name Jehovah? Some have used that terminology. I don't use that term though. Probably I prefer the term YHWH - although even that is not accurate. The Name is not actually pronounceable because no one knows the correct vowel usage. This is why in some places it has different vowels to other places - often it uses the vowels from Adonai - and at other times it uses different vowels.
I don't actually think that it helpful referring to the OT or even NT God as Jesus. God is Trinity. The LORD GOD is invariably described as invisible because he is spirit. Yet, God the Son, as part of the Divine contact or covenant took on the form of Human. God the Father, who is not Jesus and God the Holy Spirit who is not Jesus or the Father did not take on human form. In other words, God, the Holy Trinity remained God yet the Son took on human form.
Jesus when he was on earth was fully human and was invested as it were with two natures. A divine nature and a human nature. None of the miracles that Jesus is attributed as doing, none of the wisdom, nor the manner in which he conducted himself are to be attributed to his divine nature. He attributed everything he did to his Father in Heaven and to the power of the Holy Spirit. In fact God became like a man in order to be able to represent man as a man. He was born of a woman. He grew up as a child experiencing everything that humans do from a baby. He experienced adolescence, and doing chores. He grew up and became an adult. He worked and ate and slept and experienced friendship and loss - grief and happiness. In every way he was human - save and except his Father was the Holy Spirit. The difference in his life was he did not sin. And this was not because he was divine - but because he was led and taught by the Spirit of God.
So yes Jesus is God. But so is the Father and the Holy Spirit and these three are one. But the Father who is also known as YHWH and the Holy Spirt who is also known as YHWH - neither are the Son nor are the Jesus. This is the classic understanding of the Trinity. And it is what the Bible teaches.
Why are you asking the question? Perhaps that is a better way of getting to your point. After all, it is better if we start there, rather than trying to lead me into a corner which is what you are attempting to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.There is no mention of being a Christian here. There is only mention of trusting the SonThen religion is completely irrelevant?Like Judas Iscariot.Why is Judas so reviled? Didn't he only do what the plan absolutely needed him to do, get Jesus to the cross? That question always bugged me.
I agree that religion is totally irrelevant. And this is what a lot of Christians say as well. Surely you have heard or read Christians saying - that Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. Religion - the best I can see for it is as James describes it in James 1:27 as a means of looking after orphans and widows. And in that case I see charity as helpful.
Yes when it comes to God - I think religion often gets in the road. Don't misunderstand me, I do take the view that Christianity is a religion and is organised in that way. I do not pretend otherwise. Yet, really it is only a vehicle that God has chosen to use to call us back to himself.
As for Judas, he is reviled because he betrayed the Christ and never repented of it. I doubt he wanted Jesus dead, I actually think his intent was to force Jesus to take up the role of Messiah in ruling from above mode - by sword and death. I also think that greed was a part of it as well - although his returning of the pieces of silver to the Pharisees demonstrate that his intent was clearly not to see Jesus dead. However, Judas' betrayal was significant. And he never repented of it. He chose to kill himself, not own up to his betrayal. This also is an act of treason. Don't forget that Peter also betrayed Jesus. He denied Jesus three times, once even looking directly into his eyes. Yet this act of treason by Peter did not cause him to kill himself, but to repent of his sin. The two betrayals are significant and provide real insight into the question of salvation and repentance.
Was Judas' act that sent Jesus to the cross part of God's plan? Yes it was. Isaiah predicted it as did the Psalms. Jesus himself predicted it as well. Judas and the Jewish leaders and the Romans were all part of this - gee even Adam and Eve played their part as well. Yet, the same problem existed for both Judas and Adam and Eve and Peter and the Jewish leaders and the Romans - even as it exists for us - will we remain in rebellion against the Son or will trust him instead? Judas demonstrated he could not trust the Son. Peter on the other hand - ended up trusting the Son even till his own death on a roman crucifix. This is why Judas is reviled. If Peter had not repented - he would have been in the boat - reviled as well.
The question of morality also plays a part here as well. God might have had a plan which was always going to come to pass - but every individual within that plan still has to bear the responsibility of their own actions. The notion that is sometimes put forward that because God planned it - that it excuses the individual's responsibility is nonsense. Every individual in the history of humanity is totally responsible and accountable to God for their own actions. Trying to blame it on God based on some flimsy philosophical argument is akin to the crooked lawyers always trying to find a loophole for their clients. We detest the lawyers who do this - and we should detest people to who try and excuse themselves from such responsibility on some flimsy loophole that because God planned it - it is his fault entirely. Pure nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
People don't go to heaven because they are Christian. God does not discriminate on the basis or wealth, skin color, sexuality, or orientation, intelligence, sex, religion or anything else that divides people on earth. Hence if God does not discriminate on this basis - none of these things are reasons for people not to be in heaven.Please cite the bible verse that support any of this. I'm sorry bud, but this is not the Christian view. It makes religion completely irrelevant in the proposition, and violates at least one commandment. It's a nice thought but very, very few Christians will agree that Christianity is not a condition to go to Christian heaven.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.
There is no mention of being a Christian here. There is only mention of trusting the Son.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tradesecret, DEBATE RUNAWAY,YOUR QUOTE #1 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “Well on the contrary - my point was entirely directed towards showing that Jesus was not violent and was rather in favour of promoting families - and that children should honor their parents.”YOUR QUOTE #2 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #210): I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point.YOUR QUOTE #3 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “My intention was to promote children being nice to their parents and that families are a good thing inherently.”YOUR QUOTE #4 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “The highest end of my point is that children should honor their parents.”The reason I use the term "offspring" in this situation where Jesus in His serial killing mind condones the murdering of “anyone” that curses their parents, is for the FACT that it covers any age of “offspring” of said parents, get it, BIBLE FOOL?! Therefore, when you erroneously use the term “Children” you further show the membership in how biblically ignorant you truly are relative to Jesus’ actual words in said verses!Here, let me give you some more Bible Schooling at your embarrassing and laughable expense AGAIN:"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat! JESUS REPLIED, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ (Matthew 15: 1-4)GET IT BIBLE FOOL? Jesus' inspired words in the passage above stated with specificity that ANYONE that curses their father or mother shall be put to death, and where He did NOT use your term “children” that you laughably used! The "Tradition" that Jesus is talking about is the following in the Old Testament: "Anyone who curses his father or mother must surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17). Jesus does not throw away the OT writings in Matthew 15:1-4 like you pseudo-christians want to do, whereas when you do, you disparage Jesus once again because He does not change His mind (Numbers 23:19), do you understand? Jesus' inspired word uses the term ANYONE and NOT “Children” that you are erroneously proposing! H-E-L-L-O?In addition, do you want to call MARK a LIAR to like you did with Jesus' LITERAL SPOKEN WORD in committing the Unpardonable Sin? “Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” (Mark 7:10). Mark DID NOT use the term “children” like you are trying to do which only ads more proverbial egg to your face!I left out your comical and embarrassing post #218 where you were now HYPOCRITICAL to your first position regarding children as children in the true sense of the term, and where you tried so hard in continuing to use the term “children” now as adults by bending over backwards to defend your Satanic position. Priceless TURNAROUND claims! You can thank me later.Tradesecret, seriously, you really need a break in making yourself the outright Bible fool on DEBATEART in where you are by far passing ethang5 in this respect, unfortunately you are not able to see this fact. Whereas, it would be a blessing for you and the membership if you were banned for a certain time period, where it would a benefit for all of us!Your continued Bible ignorance is excused at this time, AGAIN, therefore wipe the proverbial egg from your face relative to the the facts herein. LOL!
Why are you so desperate to put this onto me? If you knew how to debate properly according the rules of a debate and knew what a real argument was then you could have spared yourself the embarrassment of getting your butt kicked by someone like me. You could have lost the battle, revealed you were intellectually honest (or at least given that perception) and then debated me and kicked my butt. But history now shows the reverse. It shows that you are an ignorant little pissant. One who has no intellectual honesty and now has to berate his opponent with as much vitreol as possible in order to make yourself feel better.
Oh by the way, why have you run away from my response to you in your Catholic forum topic? Is it because once more you have revealed yourself to be ignorant and clumsy?
I note the following for those watching. Jesus used the term children here not in the sense of minors but of adults. He was addressing adults, those who had money. Minors did not have money in those particular days (or very little anyway) and minors could not be pharisees. These are the facts and the facts are not in dispute and no one includng the brother has countered this fact.
The brother however did raise quite properly that the verse contained the word "anyone". He therefore includes minors with adults in the word children. I think he is correct. This does not mean that Jesus was addressing minors because he was not in the context, But I certainly can see how that connection can be made. As the brother indicated as well - I used the term "kids" in an earlier piece and this was because I was including kids as minors within my argument.
Nevertheless, I maintain that I did not cite violence against any person, adult or child. Neither did Jesus. His intention as mine was to promote the family unit and to encourage people to do the same. It is because we both have a very high regard for the family unit that we both hold that the highest sanctions ought to be available for those who breach it without good excuse. Maintaining that the highest sanction ought to be available for breaching what I consider such a fundamental part of society is not inciting violence. It is highlighting how important I think this family unit is. If I advocated that they ought to get a fine it would reduce significantly the view I hold of family. I certainly am not going to resile from that position just to stop myself from being banned or suspended from this site. This is why I am content for the moderator to make a ruling. And why I am also prepared for suspension if that is to be the appropriate sanction in this instance.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
and that children should honor their parents.And the punishment for children not honouring their parents is what?The Brother accused Jesus of being a killer in his human form.No I believe the Brother is suggesting that Jesus as Jehovah from the beginning killed innocent people including children. You just want to ignore this fact.Is Jesus God Jehovah or not?
Yes, Jesus is God.
Jesus while in human form for a period of at least 33 years did not kill anyone. Philippians 2:1-11 clearly indicates his divinity - but also notes his intentional humility.
Christian doctrine is Jesus is fully God and Jesus is fully human. Yet God is not human. Yet Jesus became human and remains so.
Nevertheless, and obviously my point of contention is that Jesus in his human form never killed anyone. He showed no signs of murderous intent - with murder defined as unlawful killing of people. If the argument as the Brother puts it as you seem to concur with is - God is a bloodthirsty, petty and vindicate killer then the life of Jesus is a glaring irony. Indeed, from the gospel portrayals, Jesus is loving and kind and meek and merciful and well loved by the people. His sacrificial death on the cross for the people of God is probably the highpoint of humanity. And yet the Brother and you both it seems consider this highpoint in a different light.
My position however is that Jesus in his human form was both holy and full of love and compassion and this by any objective standard is the correct picture of Jesus. I think those who object are grasping at intellectual straws. And if this is his revealed character in human form - then it stands to reason that if Jesus is God, then in his divine form, the same character will extend and be seen throughout the entire bible. I think that if God is petty and vindictive and a serial killer that he would not have been able to contain himself for his time as a human - yet the Gospels clearly show this to be the case.
It is my view and the view of millions of people around the world and through history that God is not vindictive or petty or a serial killer. He is holy and he is just. He is loving and full of compassion. This means that we would see situations where he lays down the law, and brings judgment and justice - and there will be times where we see he shows love and is full of compassion. And this is what we do see in the bible. In both the OT and the NT. God always acts in holiness and he always acts in a way consistent with his nature. If the God we see in the OT did not lawfully put people to death - then I would consider him to be unholy. If he did not warn people of the consequences of their sins - then I would think that would be unjust. Yet God from the beginning has always warned humanity.
You have a different view - and that is completely your prerogative.
I see no reason to continue the circle of justifications.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I do not deny that the words quoted above were mine.Which promotes the killing of children.
Oh yeah and one other thing which seems to missed your thoughts -
The children in this particular verse are ADULTS, not MINORS. Children of ADULTS. Jesus was talking to grownups - the Pharisees and accusing them as children of not honouring the parents. BTW - I am a child - but I am also an Adult. The point of Jesus - was to the pharisees - honour your parents. They as adults - and worse as religious leaders were dishonouring them. So you are once more WRONG about me inciting violence against children - which although you never specifically directed were minors certainly implied the same.
So when we talk about children in this context it is SPECIFICALLY not talking about minors. Which by the way accords perfectly with OT theology - and why children under the age of 20 were permitted to go into the land of Israel.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
If you are going to criticise my arguments at look at what I am saying.I did.
Well if you did good, your response surely did not look like it. You ignored my points completely.
The challenge was for the Brother to demonstrate from the gospels that Jesus while he was in his bodily form in his ministry as a human - killed people.And Jesus is god from the beginning and god/Jesus from the beginning slaughtered thousands of innocents. You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus is god from the beginning or a different god to that of the god of Hebrew and Israelite. Or is not a god at all.
Read my words - the challenge was in relation to the Brother demonstrating from the gospels that Jesus in his bodily form in his ministry as a human killed people. Even he knew that - even if it does not enter into your brain.
The Brother and I have talked about the rest before. We don't agree and that is fine. I don't have to justify myself to you - get a life.
It was specifically not about the invisible non-human form. The Brother had stated such a lie and I called him out on it and asked him to prove it.The brother has not lied. He has stuck to the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God from the beginning. You just cannot face it .
He did lie - and he does not one end of Christian doctrine from the other end.
He could not produce even one verse that Jesus killed anyone.The god of the Old Testament is Jesus who was from the beginning of time, the 1st and the last. The Alpha & Omega. This is your own dogma. And the OT is riddled with unjust death caused and committed by Jesus /Jehovah. This is what happens when you adopt a deity from a time and place that you know absolutely nothing about . The Brother has you bang to rights , snookered and cornered.
No one is saying Jesus is not God nor that he was not from the beginning of time. That was not the point of this particular debate. That is one of the reasons I took it out of the equation. The Brother is unable to prove his point when looking at Jesus specifically as Jesus in the Gospels. And if he cannot prove it of Jesus in the Gospels it destroys his entire argument. And he knows it. Why do you think he tried to bait and switch? Why is it that he could not concede? You think I was snookered? LOL @ you.
But the Brother attempting to pull the wool over our eyes by a switch and bait trick is more silly.How has he done that? He has adhered strictly to Christian dogma. Or are you now saying that the god Jehovah of the Old Testament IS NOT Jesus the god of the Christians.
Honestly, you must be really bored to continue this line. He went outside the parametres of the debate - he knows it - everyone else knows it - well apart from you. And does that surprise me? Hardly. If you agreed with me then I might accept that you had some intellectual honesty. But guess what?
I suggest he look up the term intellectual honesty.And I suggest that you start facing a few cold facts.
Ok.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I do not deny that the words quoted above were mine.Which promotes the killing of children.
Seriously! Prove it. It does not promote the notion of killing children any more than the state saying that people who kill people should go to prison, promotes sending people to prison. Does the government promote sending people to prison? Of course not. What an idiotic thing to say. The government is saying "don't kill people". My intention was to promote children being nice to their parents and that families are a good thing inherently. Suggesting a sanction is appropriate does not promote the sanction as the endgame. Sanctions are never ends in themselves. Sanctions are only a means towards an end. You really need to get a life.
I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or childrenBut you have done so .
Well on the contrary - my point was entirely directed towards showing that Jesus was not violent and was rather in favour of promoting families - and that children should honor their parents.
and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point.1st degree back peddling.
Backpeddling? You seriously have a problem following logic, don't you? How can the very outcome I am advocating be a back-peddle? Did you even follow what the debate was supposed to be about? The Brother accused Jesus of being a killer in his human form. I told him essentially to put up or shut up. He chose to go outside the rules of the debate and use a quote which Jesus took from the OT and say it suggests Jesus is bloodthirsty killer. I called the brother out not only because he went outside the rules - but because Jesus was actually promoting family values - stating that anyone including children who devalues family deserves the appropriate sanction. This sanction demonstrates how much Jesus values the family. He saw the highest sanction possible as the only appropriate response to such devaluation. I happen to have a very high view of family as well and think the highest sanction is appropriate. It seems you have no value of family and don't care if falls by the wayside.
If the learned moderator however forms the view that the words I wrote breach the TOC then I am at his / her mercy.For gods sake man , put your tong back in your head!
Whatever. I simply recognize who has the power.
I can only reiterate there was no intention of inciting violenceBut you did and I have been banned for far less.
Well no that is not the case and is why a ruling is being sought. I admitted to the quote. I have not conceded it incites violence - and in fact even more so now I am persuaded it is not an incitement of violence - and cannot be an incitement of violence. The highest end of my point is that children should honor their parents. That is what i desire. And that is what I am advocating for in the above - just like Jesus did. I agreed with the sanction Jesus proposed or quoted from because I value family that highly. I have a very high value of it.
You were banned? Well, it must have been a good reason.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
LOL! Aaah - you are back for another butt kicking. Well good for you. Too bad you ran away from the post in relation to the catholic church - you know the one where you make such clumsy and classic blunders.
As if you're not in enough trouble with Jesus in committing the Unpardonable Sin as I have easily shown to your dismay, because you have run away from addressing this biblical axiom, which precludes that you agree, and to save further embarrassment, you remain eerily silent. Then you drastically go against the Code of Ethics here on DEBATEART on literally promoting death to another in your post #203!!! The rules are there for a purpose, and they are to be followed, and if I was running the show, not only would you be banned forever, but police would be knocking upon your door post haste!
I did not commit the unpardonable sin. You have been called out on that before and so you repeating nonsense does not change your ignorance of its meaning. As for the rules on this site, I am totally cool with them. If the learned moderates exercises his discretion and bans me, then so be it. I am not going to cry over spilt milk. I explained my position and that is all I need to do.
Oh by the way, why would you send the police around to my door? You do realize that wasting the police's time is a criminal offence. And this would be a false report. But you know, go ahead, ring the police and I will waiting. I have nothing at all to hide. Would you like me banned forever? I must really get up your goat.
YOUR STEPPING IN POO QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: " I do not believe in the unlawful killing of anyone. I note this in response to the complainant whose entire basis on this site is a charade or parody - as the only true Christian because he alone believes that Jesus is a bloodthirsty tyrant."Your key phrase of "unlawful killing of anyone" is duly noted in the fact that you have stated "that the lawful killing" is okay whenJesus does it because of His Judgment! Nice try on the play of words to hide behind your other intentions! Yes, I am the only TRUE Christian upon this website because I follow ALL of the Bible, and what looks like a parody to you, is in fact what a TRUE Christian acts like at your expense. Therefore, my MO doesn't pertain to Jesus being a bloodthirsty tyrant, of which He most certainly is guilty of nonetheless.
Do you think this is spin? I do agree that unlawful killing is wrong. Lawful killing on the other hand is totally acceptable. But what is lawful killing? It is killing that occurs within the lawful framework of the law. For instance, I want butchers to kill cows, so I can eat meat. Lawful killing. I want to be able to put to death a dog that attacks my children and bites them. I want our defence force to be able to lawfully kill those who want to destroy us. I want our police officers to be able use deadly force when necessary. I want to be able to use the defence of self-defence when I or my wife or my children are being attacked. Others in our country want the freedom to be able to abort their babies without the fear of people attacking them. Others want to be able to practice euthanasia as a means of ending pain and suffering. Hence, lawful killing is the only correct way and in my view appropriate way of permitting the killing of things.
In relation to Jesus, if his judgment is lawful, then anyone who is put to death because of his ruling - it is a lawful killing. It does not on any level make him a bloodthirsty tyrant. Yet, you have never demonstrated Jesus did kill anyone while he was living on this earth as a human. Not one death. Not even a lawful one. Let alone an unlawful one. Your hypothesis is blown out of the water and everyone knows it - well apart from you.
YOUR DREAMING AND WISHFUL THINKING QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "Nevertheless, it is understandable that the complainant is aggrieved since his butt was totally kicked. LOL! "Unfortunately for your perceived notion of kicking my butt, it has not happened in this thread, nor will it ever happen in a true sense because you have meekly chickened out and ran away to my debate challenge to you regarding Jesus' TRUE modus operandi. Which reminds me, you should read my "messages" that I am getting from other members about your weak RUNAWAY status, of which I cannot show them to you BECAUSE THAT IS AGAINST THE COC WHERE I ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE RULES HERE AT DEBATEART, understood?
LOL! @ the brother.
Well you should read the messages I am getting - but oh dear I am prevented from doing so. You demonstrated you did not want to debate - you wanted to piss in my pocket. You are not interested in debating or you would admitted you were wrong. Since you could not do that - in fact your pride refuses you to allow yourself to do that - there is no point in debating you. Since if you cannot admit you were wrong in a really simple and observable way - you would not do it when you in a bigger way. What then would be the point of debating? I can admit when I am wrong. My comments to the learned moderator demonstrates that I am willing to be suspended for going to far with my words. But you don't have the ability to do so - which makes debating with you a pointless exercise.
Tradesecret, as plainly shown, you are who you pretend to be, and that is an assumed intellectual of the Christian faith, but it is never put to the true test because of you being scared and RUNNING away from a debate just like your equally Bible ignorant ethang5 has done ad infinitum. Additionally, you have pissed upon so many biblical passages as it has been shown, that I have lost count!
I have never run away from a fight. But I do choose when to fight and when not to fight. Your attempt to goad me, may well work with some, but as I have said now, on numerous occasions, with you it is not a fight or a debate. It is two people pissing on each other. I don't propose to enter into that type of discussion. Even these responses are starting to get close to that in my mind. I don't pretend to be intellectual of the Christian faith. The fact that I have educational qualifications does not make me an intellectual. the fact that I pastor in a church with many hundreds does not make me an expert either. Although I suspect from most of your comments that you have neither.
Again, because of you blatantly calling Jesus a LIAR to His literal word within the scriptures, and therefore guilty of the Unpardonable Sin against Jesus' spirit, please let the membership know when you are starting to smell sulfur, okay? At that point, we will remind you to get things in order in your life and with your family instead of being on DEBATEART making a Bible fool of yourself. Its the least we can do to a pseudo-christian of your weak caliber, where you can thank us later before you start feeling extreme heat along with the sulfur smell.
I have never called Jesus a liar. I have called you one. I have indicated that your regurgitations of what he says is wrong. When you take a verse completely out of context and try to make it say the opposite - it is the right thing to call you on it. For you it is just a game - something to wile your time away - for others it is much more than that - and your playing with other people and their emotions is not only negative and cruel - there is no good reason to do it - save and except you are hitting out and trying to hurt as many people as you can because God did not do what you asked him to do. Whatever that is - I can't tell. But it is clearly significant.
May I suggest that you purchase an asbestos suit regarding your future while upon planet earth, because like a thief in the night, you never know when Jesus has had enough of your demeaning nature towards Him.Oh, another image of you along with the "clucking chicken" that I showed you before that is so appropriate that it must hurt:
As I said to you previously, I spit on your pseudo Jesus. If he really exists - call on him to strike me dead. I am quite prepared for the response. Don't just talk - action man action man.
Created:
-->
@Barney
@BrotherDThomas
If the learned moderator wishes to take this action, obviously it is a matter for him/ her.
I do not deny that the words quoted above were mine. I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point.
In fact the entire point of my post was to demonstrate that Jesus was not a bloodthirsty or violent person and that any advocacy Jesus presented in relation to putting anyone to death was on a lawful basis. I concur with that position entirely. I do not believe in the unlawful killing of anyone. I note this in response to the complainant whose entire basis on this site is a charade or parody - as the only true Christian because he alone believes that Jesus is a bloodthirsty tyrant. I would think that it is therefore ironic in the extreme that such an advocate of such an extreme position (claiming to be the only true Christian is an extreme statement) is concerned about the words I wrote. Nevertheless, it is understandable that the complainant is aggrieved since his butt was totally kicked. LOL!
If the learned moderator however forms the view that the words I wrote breach the TOC then I am at his / her mercy. I can only reiterate there was no intention of inciting violence and perhaps to ensure that I will be more careful with the words I write in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
That's a lot of dissembling, let's see if we can get a finer point put on some of these.Probably mostly based on their parental cultural background or their political leanings. Lefties tend to take a very broad understanding of killing. They seem to think euthanasia and abortion are fine - but reject capital punishment of criminals -although generally speaking they allow for police to wear guns to protect themselves- and for the army to use force to defend their country. On the right - they tend to support capital punishment and oppose abortion and euthanasia.The 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not kill." That's all it says, right? And which one is biblically correct: the one who opposes abortion, or the one who supports capital punishment? Which one of these people is the commandment excepting, and how? You'll get no argument from me that here are plenty of good reasons to kill people, but I'm not supporting my position using a book of myths from thousands of years ago.Is it lawful to abort babies if the state says yes?Do you mean if the state has statute making the act legal? Then yes, it is lawful. That one's pretty simple, right? Legal and moral are not bound at the hip. It can be legal and immoral (laws that act as Jim Crow laws, for example), or moral and illegal (stealing food to feed your family when you have no more options and none of your prayers result in manna from heaven).I know some Christians who are homosexual - and whom I expect to see in heaven. Even though I think it is clear that homosexuality is sinful and goes against the laws of God.This sounds to me like a Christian who recognizes the actual words in the book (not the retrofit hemenautics, a semantic game invented well after the book was published in order to make the bible fit with the changing morals of society a little better) can be pretty uncomfortable, right? Good for you, I say, I'm glad you recognize it. But where in the bible is it found that you can get into heaven after living an entire life, unrepentant, as a homosexual, engaging unabashedly in homosexual acts even after church on Sunday? I hope you're right if there's a heaven, but the book says no. You can't get into heaven if you don't repent your sins. Why would your friends be an exception? Are you preaching to them about the error of their ways, praying for them to reform until your eyes cry blood? Why not?Why do we include the OT in the bible if Christians don't care about it? And why do Christians, albeit a small portion of them, go around telling gay people they're going to burn in hell when they die and hold signs like god hates fags? They DO have a bible verse to back them up, you know. Do you? Something specific as the one about men laying with other men, stone them in the street. Did I miss the verse where Jesus said "Whoops, God got that one wrong and I'm here to tell you gays are just regular people too."
The 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not kill." That's all it says, right? And which one is biblically correct: the one who opposes abortion, or the one who supports capital punishment? Which one of these people is the commandment excepting, and how? You'll get no argument from me that here are plenty of good reasons to kill people, but I'm not supporting my position using a book of myths from thousands of years ago.
I said in the Hebrew - the commandment reads "do not put to death a covenant keeper". That is the correct translation. I would suggest that most of those who oppose abortion also support capital punishment because abortions are in the eyes of Christians- killings by humans of humans out of convenience rather than necessity. Capital punishment is the lawful execution by the state against a covenant breaker. I never said I am supporting my position for either from the bible. Don't assume what you don't know. You do support your views from your own ideas - where do those ideas come from? Not a vacuum.
Do you mean if the state has statute making the act legal? Then yes, it is lawful. That one's pretty simple, right? Legal and moral are not bound at the hip. It can be legal and immoral (laws that act as Jim Crow laws, for example), or moral and illegal (stealing food to feed your family when you have no more options and none of your prayers result in manna from heaven).
If we as a society is going to say - yes it is legal therefore we should do it, well perhaps. But where does that leave civil rights movements which work outside of what is legal? And where does that leave people in the environmental movement who often move away from the law - to what they say is "the right thing"? I would think that many Christians would seek God's kingdom over the political system anyday. So far as the state complies with the bible, good, but if not, then they will do God's work and bear the consequences. And this interestingly enough is what most people do who believe in their causes - and who by the way expect the rest of the society to join them including the state. For example, BLM. I totally disagree. Yet, if the social order gets up - then it may well become law which will then be foisted on me. Similar with the environmental movement's socialist push. Any group in society who has a cause - will do what they think is necessary when the time comes. The church is no different save and except that the church is probably the broadest church in society - with the most varied views. This i think is one of its strengths by the way.
This sounds to me like a Christian who recognizes the actual words in the book (not the retrofit hemenautics, a semantic game invented well after the book was published in order to make the bible fit with the changing morals of society a little better) can be pretty uncomfortable, right? Good for you, I say, I'm glad you recognize it. But where in the bible is it found that you can get into heaven after living an entire life, unrepentant, as a homosexual, engaging unabashedly in homosexual acts even after church on Sunday? I hope you're right if there's a heaven, but the book says no. You can't get into heaven if you don't repent your sins. Why would your friends be an exception? Are you preaching to them about the error of their ways, praying for them to reform until your eyes cry blood? Why not?
Hermeneutics exist because every book requires it. It was not invented after the fact. Yet people who read books realise that to understand a book requires understanding what the author was trying to say - and in what culture he was writing, unless it just a work of fiction that does not require such a course. Yet even a book like Animal Farm requires a certain amount of background. I also reject the idea that hermenuitics was invented to make the bible fit in with current morals. Certainly no such thing is in place for homosexuality or pluralism or democracy, or as such. A generalisation like that is nonsense and unfounded.
My views on homosexuality are clear. The Bible indicates that homosexuality is sin and as such deserves the same punishment as any other sin. I don't resile from this. Since this is the case - and I know the Bible teaches in a whole lot of places that sinners wont get to heaven and often within that list includes homosexuality. Yet, God does not save people because they are heterosexual. God does not save someone because they are not a murderer. People don't go to heaven because they are Christian. God does not discriminate on the basis or wealth, skin color, sexuality, or orientation, intelligence, sex, religion or anything else that divides people on earth. Hence if God does not discriminate on this basis - none of these things are reasons for people not to be in heaven. Yet, the bible teaches that not all people will go to heaven. The question is what basis does God make? And the answer I raised above - treason. In his house he will not take anyone who hate him for who he is and who think that they can do a better job. To demonstrate that you are not treasonous - he says trust my Son. And that is the basis of going to heaven. Christians sometimes call this being born again. And that actually is not a bad way to describe the process - because like Neo who takes a pill and suddenly wakes up to find everything he knew to be wrong - people who are born again - wake up and see the world in a completely different way.
But you see - just because you start seeing the world differently does not mean automatically, that everything you did - you stop or think was wrong. After all, I still ate food. I still drank alcohol. I played sport. Many people who are gay or lesbian become Christians - and then attend churches where they are never told that homosexuality is sin - and infact their churches encourage them that it ok - and that those who say otherwise are wrong. My view is that these people if sincere in believing this is what God says - then given their world really has changed - then that does not become a deciding factor. Yet, if they have changed because the Spirit of God has converted them - his Holiness is going to drive them to keep looking until their eyes are fully opened. Being a Christian is a process of holiness. Any Christian who thinks that they never sin is a liar - any Christian who thinks they have made it - is only fooling themselves. Yet it is a process - whereby people continue to mature in the faith to become more like Jesus.
Repentance is not a condition of getting into heaven. Repentance is an obligation to be forgiven and for reconcilation to take place. Yet, God is not looking for repentance to particular types of sins - he is looking for repentance for treason. Everything else can be dealt with in time.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yet, none of them demonstrate Jesus killing anyone.Is not Jesus also Jehovah the god of the Hebrews and the Israelite? That was also this first the last, the Alpha & Omega from the beginning of time?We might as well call Tolkien a bloodthirsty murderer for all the people killed in the Lord of the Rings.Stop being silly, there is no comparison, And we all know Tolkien was simply a brilliant writer of fiction. Well most of us do.
If you are going to criticise my arguments at look at what I am saying. The challenge was for the Brother to demonstrate from the gospels that Jesus while he was in his bodily form in his ministry as a human - killed people. It was specifically not about the invisible non-human form. The Brother had stated such a lie and I called him out on it and asked him to prove it.
He did not. He could not produce even one verse that Jesus killed anyone. The most he could do was produce two verses which Jesus said - one a parable and one a quote from the OT and then he tried to move the goal posts from "Jesus killing anyone" to Jesus obviously having a MO of being a serial killer". Hence, it was an unspoken concession that Jesus did not kill anyone.
Of course comparing a parable with the Lord of the Rings seems silly to you. But the Brother attempting to pull the wool over our eyes by a switch and bait trick is more silly.
Then he had the audacity to suggest that I was making it too hard for him. I suggest he look up the term intellectual honesty - and attempt to understand what it means.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR EVER WANTING AND COMICAL QUOTE: "Tell you what, after you address post 194 appropriately and properly, and not with your usual garbage, then perhaps - once I see you know how to debate properly, I will consider debating you. "In addressing your scared post #201, THE DEBATE WILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do in how I address your biblical ignorance in your post #194, and the many others posts where I have addressed your comical conclusions, and then you ran away from them like nobody noticed! The conclusions in which you have posted already within this thread, where you "assume" have cancelled out, in part, Jesus' true modus operandi, are comical, sophomoric, and grade schoolish to say the least. These aforementioned statements will be shown to be embarrassing to you if you are able to put your big boy pants on and engage! I saw your weak type of arguments in High School, priceless!We can ALL see you're already coming up with excuses in that I am supposed to now "debate properly," "have the proper skills of debate," "follow the rules of a debate," etc., etc., as if these rules needed to be followed in our discussion to date, where I have easily made you the biblical fool and have not followed said rules, and that you've accepted! Whats next? Do I have to be wearing a white T-shirt, blue jeans, and only post to you on odd days of the month, between the times of 3:09 pm and 2:13 am? Maybe you need me to only post to you on Tuesdays, Thursday and Saturday afternoons, and obviously not on Sunday because it is the day of rest? LOL!You have danced around for so long, and knowing that I am leaving on a trip forthwith, we have lost valuable time in your hiding from the inevitable! "This is because I only have about 3 days or so to show your continued biblical ignorance at your expense, because of a planed trip, okay?"https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557-what-is-your-favorite-argument-for-the-existence-of-god?page=7&post_number=172
LOL! @ your false sense of arrogance.
For your information whether I debate you or not is no skin of my nose. I have nothing to prove or to lose. You don't get that do you?
But what I do want is a real debate - I don't want to debate for the sake of having a debate. I don't want to debate to give you a lift. I don't want to debate in a framework of a popularity contest. For me this is not a pissing contest.
I do however want a proper debate and to know that the person I am debating understands what a debate is and how it functions. One of the primary things about having a real debate is that parties can recognize when a decent argument arises - but also when they have been beaten fair and square. You don't possess that particular character trait which is necessary for such a debate to properly take place.
I gave you a really easy test - Did Jesus kill anyone while he was on earth? All you had to say was no. Concede the point - concede that you recognize in that particular point you were wrong and that you had lost that argument. But did you do this? No, your dumb pride got in the way as it often does - so rather than saying - well - you got me there - you decided to go outside of the rules - change the goal posts and make it about something else. So instead of the actual debate- did Jesus kill anyone? No you said - well he said some words and they infer it don't they? In fact you even left the gospels which specifically was part of the parameters. And then tried to use all of these quotes to jump frog ahead in logic - lightyears ahead of anything rational to say Jesus has an obvious MO of being a serial killer. Not one argument in your so called rebuttal went to the very point of the debate. If you don't the difference between a battle and war, that is not my problem. But it one for you because while you try to win every battle - you cannot logically win the war.
It was simple. You just proved you did not want to debate - you only proved you wanted to win at any cost. Even at the loss of your own dignity. But if all you are concerned about is winning - then I am not at all interested in debating with you - since that is not a debate - but a pissing contest - of which I am entirely not interested.
Take that however you like - but unless you have the capacity to admit you were wrong - at all - especially when everyone else knows that you are - then there is little point in anyone trying debate you because everyone will know that you have no intellectual honesty. And if you don't have that - you will always lose.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE ONCE AGAIN IN POST #194: "Ok smarty pants, when Jesus walked on this earth in his ministry as a human - how many people did he kill? And don't go back to the OT because that specifically was not when he was walking this earth as a human in his ministry. You only the gospels to play with? "Okay, barring the fact that Jesus as the HEBREW God Yahweh incarnate had many brutal and horrific murdering sprees within the Old Testament, and that you are to SCARED to discuss with me in a debate, as you have embarrassingly and cowardly shown the entire membership. I will use a few New Testament passages that you requested that have Jesus in a murdering state, where He wants to murder by proxy, threatens to murder, and calls the Pharisees' out for not murdering, in which murders are done in Jesus' name, which has the same outcome as Jesus doing these murders Himself. Okay?JESUS SAID: “I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me. After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.….” ( Luke 19:26-28)JESUS SAID: “Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2: 22-23)JESUS SAID: "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Matthew 15: 1-4)The above passages, parables or not, were spoken by Jesus, attributed to Jesus, and therefore shows Jesus in a murdering modus operandi. For your runaway state of mind, I have left out further pertinent details that show Jesus in a more embarrassing light to said passages above, but I don't want to over stress what brain cells you have left at this time, especially in showing you to be the BLATANT RUNAWAY to debating me in Jesus' TRUE MO! LOL.Tradesecret, seriously, how much embarrassment are you willing to take here on DEBATERART? Here I thought ethang5 relished himself in being biblically embarrassed, but you are starting to take the cake in this respect! Congratulations Tradesecret!
Well certainly it is a good try. So cudos for that. Yet, none of them demonstrate Jesus killing anyone. The first verse is a parable of a story. We might as well call Tolkien a bloodthirsty murderer for all the people killed in the Lord of the Rings.
Your second verse is not even from the Gospels - which was the entire point of this discussion, proving how desperate you are too make a point. Your quote:
uh, tell that to Jesus as the serial killer Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate as He walked the earth within the scriptures and SEEN BY MANY! H-E-L-L-O?
Not only that - it is talking about judgment. And I clearly said judgement is not murder - it is a lawful execution and metaphorical at that. In the verse - she is also given an opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness - but chooses not too.
Your third verse is an OT quote which says - to kids to honour their parents - and he who curses his parents should be put to death. Notice Dear Brother that if no one curses their parents - then no one dies. And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death. It does not make Jesus a serial killer for quoting the OT and it certainly does not make him a serial killer for supporting a good relationship with parents. You are grasping for straws .
But as you rightly concede Jesus did not kill anyone while he walked on the earth in his human ministry. And while I accept that these words were words that came from his mouth - they show only that he is a good and holy judge who not only protects families but will ensure that those who want to destroy the same are punished. Yet even here there is no indication that he would do unlawfully or vindictively, or in any way that is petty. As for suggesting it demonstrates his MO - you are clearly desperate to make a point.
But for you to win a debate you need to have an argument. Any argument would be better than none. But knowing you don't have an argument - rather than follow the rules of debating which would acknowledge this - you obfuscate and deflect and try and change the goal posts.
Why don't you try again? Oh yeah and this time without the normal garbage and ad hom attacks.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tell you what, after you address post 194 appropriately and properly, and not with your usual garbage, then perhaps - once I see you know how to debate properly, I will consider debating you.
First, address and respond to post 194 and we will have a practice debate. If you can demonstrate you have the proper skills of debate, then I will happily debate you. And lets be very clear about this - just because you think you have demonstrated it - does not mean in fact that you have done so.
So please follow the rules of debating - and we will see. Post 194 essentially sets up the debate:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
They (KKK) are going to support someone.
If there are only two candidates and the KKK want to vote - what do you do about?
After all, every candidate is going to say that they will govern for everyone - which includes the KKK - even if they never use their name.
Or do you think that elected officials ought to only rule and govern for some of the people? Perhaps the Democrats and other so called elitists?
But the question is - is the Democrat who wins an election and stands up and says I will govern and look after everyone - really a liar because they know they are not going to ever represent or govern for the KKK?
I think that politicians need votes to win. And where the votes come from is irrelevant, so far as they are a legal citizen of the country with the same vote as anyone else. Unless of course you think that the vote of a member of the KKK is worth less than other votes?
Trump can abhor the values of the KKK. Gee I abhor the values of Democrats - yet I would not refuse a vote from one if they chose to vote for me. And how could I decide which vote to decline?
In the US political scene - at the end of the day there are two parties - every one on the right side will vote right - they are never going to vote left. And everyone on the left side will always vote left - they are hardly going to vote for the Republican party. When the Left say- - oh you are getting the support of the KKK - duh! well yep - but that does not mean I agree with them. It is funny I never hear the Right complaining about the fact that the Chinese Communists always vote the Democrats. And I dont hear the Democrats ever distance themselves from the Communists - nor tell them i wont take your votes.
I mean what do you expect these Communists and these KKK to do with their vote? Do you want them to actually say - we don't like the system so lets do something else - and burn the country? Perhaps you do.
I on the other hand - think it is rational - that any candidate tries to elucidate every vote - no matter where it comes from. It is not like Trump has offer the KKK anything to secure their votes. They are going to vote for him anyway - they would never vote for the Democrats - just like the Greens dont need to be bribed to vote for the Democrats - they are never going to vote for Trump.
Of course they might choose not to vote at all - but that really is a vote for the incumbent - isn't?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What is even more laughable is that - the one verse you want to quibble about has nothing to do with your assertions about Jesus.
The fact that you missed this is - giving the rest of us a good old laugh.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Let me ask you one last question: can anyone go to heaven if they don't know Jesus and accept him as their personal savior? Like can the nicest muslim child go to heaven if they go into st. Peter's office denying Jesus as his personal savior?
Why? What should it matter? We don't pick a system because we think it is fair or just. We might try to move to one if there is one that fits our view of just. But again that comes down to who decides the rules of what just is? Is it God or it you? And if you think it is you - then in my view that is you deciding you want to be in control - God.
As for an answer to your question I will provide a quote which I hold to: it is part of the Declarative Statement of the PCA and the underlined words are probably what you need to read.
"That while none are saved except through the mediation of Christ and by the grace of the Holy Spirit, Whoworketh when and where and how it pleaseth Him; while the duty of sending the Gospel to the heathenwho are sunk in ignorance, sin and misery is imperative; and while the outward and ordinary means ofsalvation for those capable of being called by the Word are the ordinances of the Gospel, in accepting thesubordinate standard it is not required to be held that any who die in infancy are lost, or that God may notextend His Grace to any who are without the pale of ordinary means, as it may seem good in His sight."
In other words, while Christians accept that there is the ordinary way in which people trust God and are reconciled to him, God in his grace is able to save any he might seem fit. This means - that it is a matter for God, not for me to make that decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
When you kill or hit or assault or call others evil names then you are attacking the very image of God.So what is the answer? According to Jesus, should we ever kill another person? What verse unequivocally supports your position, and why do so many Christians disagree (doesn't matter which side you take, Christians barely agree on anything)?
There seems to be two questions in that jumble? One, can we kill or not kill? Two, why don't Christian agree on barely anything?
Firstly, if you have taken time to read my statement above properly, you would have noticed I distinguished between murder and kill. The difference is whether it is lawful or not. The Bible clearly excuses lawful killing and forbids unlawful killing. I think that is quite clear and not hard to understand. The verse which supports this is in Exodus 20:13 which in Hebrew says - "you shall not put to death a covenant keeper."
Secondly, Christians agree pretty much on 95% of everything. So I reject your generalisation. They differ mainly in relation to cultural issues - such as church government, music etc and incidentals that do not relate to the substance of the gospel. In relation to the 6th commandment - there are differences of opinion. Why do they differ? Probably mostly based on their parental cultural background or their political leanings. Lefties tend to take a very broad understanding of killing. They seem to think euthanasia and abortion are fine - but reject capital punishment of criminals -although generally speaking they allow for police to wear guns to protect themselves- and for the army to use force to defend their country. On the right - they tend to support capital punishment and oppose abortion and euthanasia. Some swing from side to side depending upon their view of whether lawful and moral are weighted equally or not. Is it lawful to abort babies if the state says yes? Or does it come to down to a moral position?
What makes something lawful? Is it because the state says so? Or because it is the right thing to do according to morals? And whose morals are going to determine what is moral collectively or not? Is it the majority, or is it something that is simply right because it is inalienable. My view is that Christians are really a broad sample of what the community values are - there are a plethora of views within society on politics - and similarly there are in the church.
My view is that abortion should be illegal - but that there are times when it is permissible. Primarily when the mother's life is at risk. Not because it is inconvenient or because the child might be born disabled. The question of rape is a problematic one. I understand the pain and trauma that the mother will suffer if the baby is born - and yet one of my closest friends is that baby that resulted from a rape. She is a beautiful person - and her mother does not regret whatsoever having her. They are the best of friends. What is more - is that my friend went and found her father - who was in prison for another rape. And now they have a close relationship. The father became a Christian was released and now his life has reformed. He now spends his time working and donating money and time and energy to helping families of people like the ones he has hurt. Incredible story - but obviously problematic when it comes to me to decide on my specific point here.
Laws about slavery - in the OT and even in the NT are obviously not so relevant in a world where slavery is apparently outlawed. Yet the principles remain and can be applied to lots of things - employment law, bank mortgages, property laws.The book has laws about what clothes to wear and what you should eat and which day of the week you can work (Christians largely ignore the sabbath). Why do you think it needed to use "slavery" as a way to comment on bank mortgages and employment laws? Please connect these dots. "Buy only foreign slaves" means what in the parlance of property title law, do you think? Why communicate this message in a way that makes certain people able to use this holy book to support the most disgusting abridgment to human rights?
Yes, this is why I mentioned hermeneutic. Understanding how the principles apply in one unique culture helps us to determine how they might apply in our culture. What I do think needs to be understood before I discuss this further is that Christians are not bound to the OT law. This is a matter of hermenuetic - but also a matter of doctrine. Christians are not saved by the law - they are saved by grace. Hence why I know some Christians who are homosexual - and whom I expect to see in heaven. Even though I think it is clear that homosexuality is sinful and goes against the laws of God.
I will come back to you on the rest of the paragraph. Unfortunately I have run out of time - and have to go to work - but I will be back.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Uh, tell that to Jesus as the serial killer Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate as He walked the earth within the scriptures and SEEN BY MANY! H-E-L-L-O?
Ok smarty pants, when Jesus walked on this earth in his ministry as a human - how many people did he kill? And don't go back to the OT because that specifically was not when he was walking this earth as a human in his ministry. You only the gospels to play with?
So, Please take us to the gospels - where Jesus in his human ministry is portrayed and as part of human ministry killed anyone? The fact is Mr Genius, you won't find any because it did not happen. Your nonsense is once again demonstrated for all and sundry to see. After all, if the character of Jesus is to be a murderous blood thirsty baby killer or whatever you imagine in your tiny little brain, then this would have been demonstrated while he was walking the planet as a human amongst people. If he was vindictive, if he was petty, if he was a serial killer, then he would not have been able to prevent himself - and yet the facts refute your lies completely.
There is not a scrap of evidence of your lies anywhere in the gospels. And if his life on earth reveals his character as it did. Humble, self-sacrificing, generous, helpful, and loving towards people, then it stands to reason that this is how his character is as God as well. And if that is the case, which it clearly is, then by implication the rest of the bible also reveals the actions and character of a Holy God - one who is just and judges sinners - and one who also shows mercy to others. And lo and behold - this is exactly what we see when we read the bible as a whole.
You don't have to like it old chap, but those are the facts - and the facts are not in dispute. The only fallback from here is - one you deny Jesus is God - and take the view that God in the Bible is as you have proscribed before - (which you have not done and cannot do) and that Jesus is just a good man completely at odds with this God - or you take the view - which incidentally is your real position - that you don't believe in God except to hate him.
All in all, it is time for you to stop playing the goose - and get a life.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
radesecret,YOU KEEP RUNNING AWAY FROM DEBATING ME RELATIVE TO JESUS’ TRUE MO THAT I KEEP SHOWING AD INFINITUM IN THIS THREAD, WHY? SCARED? AFRAID OF BEING MADE THE BIBLICAL FOOL AGAIN? WHAT GIVES? YOU WANT ME TO PROVE JESUS’ TRUE MO, SO LETS DEBATE IT. DON’T YOU REALIZE YOUR EQUALLY BIBLE IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIANS ARE WATCHING YOU RUN? HOW TOTALLY EMBARRASSING!Heads up, Don’t even think that the clap trap sophomoric rhetoric that you have given thus far shown above in this thread is even close to explaining away Jesus’ TRUE MO, understood? Your assumed intellect will not allow you to be embarrassed with such ever so wanting childlike refutations. Unbelievable! You're acting like you want to be the #1 Bible ignorant pseudo-christian on DEBATEART, therefore taking away this cherished position from ethang5!Listen, tell you what, to make it somewhat fair for you, when engaging your outright pseudo-christian idiocy upon the topic in question, I will tie my hands behind me, blindfold myself, and type with my feet, okay? In this way you may have a 1 percent out of 100 chance, okay?Just you and me Tradesecret, waiting!
I notice this: you don't have the capacity to even address one of my responses. Hence the total paragraph of ad hom attack. Thanks for conceding.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
God is not vindictive. He punishes justly and properly.You mean like the condemnation of all humanity, for all time, because one human did something God knew he would do (eat the fruit)? It's literally the first punishment in the bible. Also, is it truly not only just, but SUPERjust, and SUPERmerciful, to have the only loophole in your system of punishment and redemption be to torture the only character claimed to be free of sin, in order to get rid of the sins of others? Is it JUST, let's say, for you to allow another person to accept punishment for a crime you committed? Is it not more merciful to simply say "Wow, I set up a flawed system here. I'm all powerful, so I'm just going to hit the reset button on all these sins, rather than torture the only innocent person on earth, who happens to also be me."
Humanity condemned itself when it made its own choice. It knew the consequences and went ahead and did it anyway. No much good complaining about the time you serve when you chose to do the crime. How many prisoners in prison say - it is not fair. Gee it is not like God never told them what would happen to them. Fact is - humanity, not God condemned themselves to Hell. God had already given them so much freedom, yet that was not enough for them. They had to be greedy. They had to have more. They wanted to be God. Nothing has really changed. Vindictiveness would make sense if God had simply condemned them without letting them know the rules - which were really easy to follow. Really easy. It is not like God said - you must do the impossible in order to satisfy my honor. All he said - was eat and multiply. Go and have fun in whatever way you like. Just don't think you know better than me - I am God, after all. And humanity, in its all of its wisdom - threw that out - they did not want any rules. And that is still the problem today. Except now, humanity knows that humanity needs rules. Hindsight is always a harsh master.
Did God know they were going to eat the fruit? Of course he did. God knows all things. This does not mean that God made them do it. And humanity would have preferred they had their own choice - rather than just be slaves and robots. Why is it that - you (not collectively) complain about the fact that had a choice which God knew you would make and you also whinge about the thought that God impacts upon your freewill. Fact is - either way you complain. This people is called sin and resentment - and dare I say it - guilt. The fact that the State knows that many of its rules will be broken every day is not a reason not to have rules. The state is not even omniscient and it still makes rules. It still tells its citizens - you cannot be me.
It would have been totally just to let everyone die in their sins. Absolutely just because humanity committed the crime knowing its sentence was death. And Adam knew this knowing full well he was sentencing all of humanity to death including the babies. He still made the choice. He thought the risk was worth it. But he was wrong. God has every right to send everyone who has ever lived to that end - including Noah. Including Moses. Including David. Including Peter. Including Paul. Including Mary the Mother of Jesus. And if he did so - it would have totally just and totally appropriate. To reject this notion is to reject any understanding of justice and legal systems even that exist in our world. Legal systems are set up specifically to deal with human behavior - and justice systems work entirely in line with everything I have said so far.
It is not a loophole. It is the prerogative of those who have been offended - or those who are in charge to show mercy. The President of the USA has this power. Why should God not? The governors of local prisons have this power, why should not the God of the universe? Would you prefer a God who simply acts just and shows no mercy to one who is just and merciful? Or would prefer a God who is not just - and simply lets everyone do whatever they want - you know a bit like letting Adam and Eve into the garden of Eden without any rules whatsoever? I used the term super just or super merciful because it seems appropriate - because it is more than fair using the socialist understanding of fair - to grant mercy to people who do not deserve it. Can you imagine the outrage that would occur if prisons all over the land decided to let all of the pedophiles out? Yet the sin of treason against God is worse than pedophilia. And that is what Adam and Eve committed along with all of humanity since. Yet even then God has provided mercy for some of these people. It is not a loophole - it is the prerogative of the sovereign - a principle recognized even in our fallen system.
And what you don't get is this. The one person who never sinned - was himself. In other words, he took the punishment for those who were prepared to repent of their treason - and he took it on himself. A loophole? The punishment needed to be paid. Same as it is in our societies justice system. If people owe a fine - and they don't have the money to pay for it - they either get someone else to pay for it - or they go and do time in prison. It has to be paid because a wrong has been committed. Jesus paid this fine with his own body. He died and bore the sins of his people. Who gets this benefit? Only those who are prepared to give up their treason against God.
Some might say he did set the reset button when he destroyed the world at Noah's flood. And guess what - humanity continued to do what they always did -reject God and continue on their merry way.
God did not set up a flawed system. He set up a just system. You don't like the system because you want to be your own God and the system does not allow you to do this. The system continues to call you to account - to repent of your sins. You don't like the system. That is your problem. You don't even have to agree with the system. Yet that does not stop you from being in the system. I see people all of the time walk into a court room only to say to the court "I don't accept your jurisdiction". What do you think happens? Does the judge just say - "Ok then, see you later, you can home"? Or do they simply continue with the process?
Is it just for me to allow someone else to accept responsibility for my crime? Why not? In a system whereby we are on death row because one man- Adam decided to sentence all of his family to death for his action - doing so on my behalf without my permission, why would it also not be just that one man might also represent us in that sentence? That is the system. I am grateful that Jesus did this for me. I am grateful that judge accepts this provision. As I said before - even our worldly state has provisions for others to bear the responsibility of the offender in different circumstances. Why do you think that if the state has this prerogative, that the God of the universe is wrong for utilising?
Created: