Total posts: 3,520
- John the Baptist leaped for joy at the presence of God in the womb of Mary.
- That Mary was chosen by God and called most blessed.
- That the Holy Spirit breathed into Mary and she became pregnant and that this act uniquely distinguishes EVERY other religion from Christianity. Sex between god and man is a pagan product, and rejected by the true God.
- That the angels and the shepherds witnessed the coming of the messiah and the angels worshiped Christ. And the Shepherds visited the new mother and child.
- That the angels sang. An interesting phenomenon given that this doesn't seem to fit with just being a messenger.
- That the angels warned Joseph to leave Bethlehem when Jesus was about two and he did and went to Egypt.
- That Herod died and the Angel told Joseph he could return.
- That Joseph took his family to Nazareth.
- That Jesus' birth was prophesied as was his messiahship.
- That the Scriptures were fulfilled.
- That Jesus grew and then finally was killed on a cross.
- That Jesus rose from the dead.
- That over 500 witnesses saw this over a period of at least a month.
- That almost all of the disciples died for the truth of this event.
- That the church grew exponentially.
- That 2023 years later the church continues to celebrate the birth and death and resurrection of Jesus despite the antagonists.
- That today the numbers of Christians has risen from 12 in about 50 million people to almost 1 in every 4 people in the world.
- That where Christ is preached, new hope and new life changes the people who turn to him.
- That the gospel continues to transform people's lives and the world around them.
- That is the best news that people can know - a reconciliation with God - for ever.
- That Christ will return some day - to judge the world.
- And that every knee will bow - whether you believe or not and whether you think this is nonsense or not. and indeed whether you are alive or have passed on.
- Merry Christmas. May you experience communion with the Christ.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
When we die we go up.Upwards.
I don't think so. I think when people die they are either buried or cremated. One is into the ground. I suppose the latter is upward and into the clouds.
You or one looks to the sky when ummmm, you refer to a dead person.God lives in the sky .Jesus lives skyward.
I take the Hebrew view of heaven, not the Greek Version.
In the Bible, heaven and earth are hand in hand. Heaven is on earth. In the Greek version, the two are separated. Many Christians have followed the Greek version more than the Hebrew one. So I don't as a general rule look to the sky when someone dies. I think God lives everywhere. Not just in the sky but under the sky and even in Hell. Jesus is currently in heaven. Heaven in my view is on the earth. Matthew 28 and the book of Acts state that Jesus went up into the clouds. This might mean going up. Especially if he was on a mountain. But many mountains in certain parts of the year have clouds or fog or mist on top of them. A fog or mist is a cloud at the human earth level.
Thats odd right ?Well it isn't, butttttt, it is.But it isn't.
What's odd?
Although thats a pre pagan thing, you can almost feel that everyone was a pagan one day.Whats your thoughts on the paganism / or the pagan things found in Christianity. ?
Thinking God is heaven in the sky is a pagan thing. I agree. But it is not a Christian thing.
Many Christians have embraced paganism in its various forms. This occurs for various reasons. Mostly it is because pagans become Christians and bring their baggage with them. Sometimes, Christians who want to be universalist and inclusive embrace what they think are good things in pagan culture and bring them to the church. At other times, it is because pagan culture has existed for hundreds of years in the church and no one has noticed until later. And sometimes it is because the church believes it has the right to assume all of the treasures of the world into the church.
The fact is - sometimes it is difficult to differentiate what is pagan and what is not. Prayer for instance is both pagan and Christian. Believing in a deity or multi-deities is both pagan and Christian. Singing songs is both pagan and non-pagan. Some things are common to most if not all religions. And some things are not.
I note too that some festivals are held on the same date of the year. This is hardly controversial although it is amazing how many people like to use it as a "gotcha" moment. There are only 365 days in a year. A limited number. A limited number of months. A limited number of seasons and long or short days. It stands to reason that some of these dates are going to be considered more sacred than others because of their scarcity. Full Moons. Etc. And just because a pagan religion decides to use the same day as another doesn't mean it has stolen it or taken it or even embraced it. My nephew is born on Christmas Day. It doesn't mean he is a fake. Or that he has borrowed it just because it is Christmas Day. There is a terrible fallacy that would suggest otherwise going on.
I probably engage in pagan rituals and beliefs that I don't know are pagan. Most people might. Yet, I am open to changing things if necessary.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You did't answer my question. Do pilots have wings?Or else, let's put it simpler. Does a man need wings to fly?
I'll answer your questions. Will you then please answer mine?
So pilots do not have physical wings. Most however do have clothing wings.
Men typically cannot fly without the help of a mechanical machine or a glider. Of course, they can jump out of a plane and fly until they hit the ground.
So in the Bible, Elijah went up into heaven in a fiery chariot. And Jesus ascended into the clouds of heaven. Jesus didn't have wings, but he was atypical.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
If you can believe in your real beginning, you will knowthyself.
What do you mean "real beginning"? Do you mean when your body was formed? Or perhaps conceived? Or can you go back further than conception? Or are you talking about self-awareness? Or self-awareness that has memory? Can we have self-awareness without memory? (Yes, you suggested it was that moment when you become self-aware. But why is that important? How does that help?)
How will knowing your "real beginning" help you to know thyself?
How do we test such a thing? And isn't the idea of travelling back to some time in the past, really just hypnotism? Power of suggestion and not necessarily accurate on most levels?
And what does it mean to be "working towards your best possible end to life? And how do you know if are doing that or is that just a presumption that all are doing so?
Can someone not be doing so?
And why is it important that we know ourselves? Surely, no one else is ever going to know us as well as we do? Except perhaps God?
Are you ULTIMATELY suggesting that the best end to life is the desirable outcome and we can only know this satisfactorily if we also know our beginning? Does this have to do with the circle of life?
Thanks for the OP. It gives food for thought. I am just trying to understand its purpose.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's not difficult to realize that ancient people perceived the reality in a very different way than we do. It all comes down to knowledge and level of conciousness. How do you think the ancient people would describe a pilot that get off an airplane that has just landed? Or even better, a man with a jet suit? Do they have wings?
People in times past worked using what is often called the "language of appearance".
And how would they describe a person who looks like a man who has wings and flies?
Since I don't agree that there were aeroplanes in the ancient past, I don't think speculating about how they would describe them would assist in this discussion.
I don't disagree of course that an ancient man attempting to describe something modern would be difficult. Yet it would seem to me that such a quest is putting the cart before the horse.
Modern People look for instance into the Bible and see things they don't understand. Or the things that the ancient man is describing remind them of something from our time and so - they take 2 + 3 and come up with the answer they want. But that's not good reasoning. It's pretty bad logic actually. That's why there is so much confusion over the Book of Revelation. The book of Revelation describes events that have mostly already taken place. And it is doing so using imagery and OT language.
The Ancient Hebrews described a bat as a bird because it flew. They didn't use our scientific classification system. They had their own.
How is someone supposed to describe a man that has wings and flies? I suppose we might label them a superhero. Or perhaps they had cartoons and comic strips?
To simply speculate it must be aliens is well, intriguing, but no closer to knowing the truth.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Thanks for your response. At least I see what you mean now.
It is presumptive on the idea that Cherubim and Seraphim are not angels.
The Church has always maintained that Cherubim, Seraphim, and even Arch Angels are all types of spiritual beings, that are distinct from God. And are different types of angels. Hence, why you will find Christians disagreeing with you.
Interestingly, other cultures within the OT times did have beings that had wings. And curious that the author of the article you produced somehow mentioned this even to the point he said it was unusual that the Hebrew culture did not.
Angels did appear on many occasions looking like men. Although some looked stronger than men. Take Gabriel in Daniel. He looked like a man - and yet had eyes like torches. If they were just like men, why is it that on almost every occasion they had to tell people to "not be afraid"?
Paul's remarks that people had unknowingly entertained angels seem to be at odds with those who are afraid of angels.
All we can say is that at times angels looked like men and at times were ordinary in appearance and at other times were scary. Certainly, if they didn't want to look ordinary and they wanted to give an appearance of being important, they had that capacity as well. Take Abraham's visit with the three angels as an example.
None of this is to suggest that cherubim and seraphim are not types of angels. The Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of God both gave visible pictures of these creatures. Angel means messenger. The book of Hebrews distinguishes between angels and God and between angels and humans.
I see the Seraphim as a type of angel. Despite your article's assessment - these creatures do function as angels. Protection is a function of angels. Being a messenger is a function of angels. Being visible is also a function. And being invisible is too. Did every angel have a wing? I don't know. Not every angel is a generic angel and not every angel is a cherubim or seraphim or arch angel.
What we do know is that God created - and that the angels or whatever you want to call them - are creatures.
Thanks for the articles. I appreciate you took the time - and for that I thank you.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
In Isaiah 6:2 the angels had six wings. Seraphim is a type of angel.How many times do I have to say it? ANGELS DON'T HAVE WINGS IN THE BIBLE!! This is just a made-up stuff. Artists like Leonardo Da Vinci, Rafael, and many others put wings on angels because they levitate and fly according to the bible.You see now how manipulated the bible is? But I don't expect you to change your mind since dogmatic people by definition are close minded.
You can say it ad finitem for all I care. It doesn't make it true.
Isaiah 6 is very clear. And it was written long before Da Vinci, Rafael and others came along.
Why don't you explain what Isaiah 6 is referring to if it is not wings? Please produce some kind of evidence for your nonsense.
The bible, I concede, during times of any translation is going to come with the baggage of the day. Baptism for example changed from pouring and aspersion to submersion. This is going to have an impact upon how people understand it. Is it manipulation? Possibly. I think the KJV for example was intentionally written to refute the growing reformed polity which had an anti-absolute monarchy theme. The Geneva Bible was very popular until then in Europe and Britain.
I am not closed minded - I just want you to produce something more than - "you are a dogmatist". Perhaps what might be helpful if you can show how the Isaiah Hebrew Text has changed? That might be nice. If they are not wings, then what are they?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
In Isaiah 6:2 the angels had six wings. Seraphim is a type of angel.
Translations are different from interpretations. The translations are language from one culture being communicated into a different culture.
Interpretations are NOT translations. They are an attempt to say what the meaning of the text is - as opposed to what the language was saying.
And since there are two aspects here it is important that every modern translation of the bible- uses the same underlying text. It is primarily the KJV which actually uses a different underlying text.
Ezekiel is not about spaceships. He is describing the ark of the covenant within the temple. Ezekiel is the predominant place in the Old Testament to understand who the "Son of Man" is; lo and behold - it is a man, a priest.
Hence, the book describes the high priests' vision of the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You suggested the Bible was boring. I disagreed with you. I suggested the problem is not with the book but with the person reading it.I dont think you understand what the topic is.It's called keeping yourself active.Well, maybe you dont understand how boredom works either.I don't worship the Bible. I worship the one who breathed it out. Or inspired it.Oh great. Now what can you tell us about him that the Bible didnt tell you, and how do you know that?
Yes, your topic is "the bible is boring". If it's not then please tell me what it is.
You could be right about me not knowing what boredom is. I never get bored. And I read the bible.
Now who is derailing their topic? I responded to your comment. I disagreed. I said I don't worship the Bible. I don't.
I take the view that God speaks to people on this planet in two ways. One is general revelation and two is special revelation.
Special Revelation is explained in Hebrews 1:1-3. Includes, angels, prophets, dreams, visions, priests, the bible, and Jesus.
General Revelation is the Creation around us. The creation around us - reveals to us the majesty, power and wisdom of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
@Best.Korea
Certainly, there is humour of a type there. But sadly, it also simply continues the misrepresentation of what religion, God and Christianity are about.
If someone were to analyse this logically - it would destroy atheism.
Of course. It's humour. And so as far as it remains for those who like this type of humour, great. I do note the irony though, that if someone mocked Charles Darwin and evolution in this same fashion, despite its humour, the responses would be scornful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
the people who were inclined (pardon the pun) towards needing to be excited by something else, were considered to be slothful.Well, how else am I going to get excited? Did being excited come on its own for people before? Did the vaccines cause boredom?
It's called keeping yourself active. Vaccines?
Anyway, nice try derailing the thread, but sadly for you, it wont work.
You're most welcome, but I am not derailing or trying to derail your topic. You suggested the Bible was boring. I disagreed with you. I suggested the problem is not with the book but with the person reading it. That is exactly on topic.
The book that you worship is simply awful to read. Bible is boring. Its very boring.
I don't worship the Bible. I worship the one who breathed it out. Or inspired it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The four gospels all have different purposes and audiences.
There are similarities in the first three gospels, hence the synoptic idea. Yet even they are significantly different from each other.
The gospel of John is quite dissimilar. And again has a different purpose.
Boring? Someone has said the word "boring" is a modern word. Before the word became part of our vernacular, the people who were inclined (pardon the pun) towards needing to be excited by something else, were considered to be slothful.
Hence to suggest something is boring is a sign of someone being lazy.
But for the record, I find history interesting. I find poetry interesting. I find wisdom literature interesting. I find prophetic and apocalyptic literature interesting.
I don't find any of the Scriptures boring. What might be considered boring of course is the endless repetition of people slandering others and then denying it.
Or the endless repetition of clogging up a website using racist remarks and ugly sexist remarks.
Boring in that sense has nothing to do with the sluggard. It has to do with the mindless activity of someone whose mind lives in the gutter. I seem to recall a certain person on a now-defunct website exercising such boring repetition. Now who was that again?
He seems to remind me of someone on this website. And then the irony of that person suggesting the Bible is boring. LOL! It staggers the mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
First, gospels make less than 1% of the Bible.
Actually,
Matthew is 3% of the bible all by itself.
Mark is 1.85%
Luke is 3.19% and
John is 2.56%
That's a total of 10.6% of the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, in the Bible, John lived by eating a grasshoppers.
It was locusts and although it may have been the insect there is also a suggestion it was referring to the Locust Tree fruit.
"John the Baptist ate locusts and wild honey but the “locusts” were not insects as many supposed. In this instance locust most likely refers to the leathery brown root of the Carob tree. Bread made from the Carob bean is known as Locust Bread. Carob is also known as Saint John’s Bread. The Carob tree is an evergreen native to Southern Europe and northern Africa. Used since the ancient times as a natural sweetener, Carob contains Vitamin B complex, is high in calcium and contains no caffeine."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Merry Christmas Lemming,
I hope this season brings you many unexpected (good unexpected) things and joy.
I hope you get to spend some time with your family.
Cheers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Thanks for the greeting. And a merry Christmas to you to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I posted something and have deleted it. sometimes I speak from the hip and I need to do better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Again good to know.
Where about in Luke?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
To stop kids from committing their favorite sin.It takes a huge amount of Christian stupidity to think that circumcision will stop someone from masturbating, but Christian doctors promoted circumcision and claimed it will stop kids from masturbating.Christianity requires faith, but problem is that when you start believing in things without proof, you start believing all sort of nonsense which is why you can expect to hear dumbest things from religious people, for example stopping masturbation being one of them."Being religious is not exactly a sign of great intelligence".
duh! Circumcision is not a Christian tradition. It is Jewish, and Muslim. (I am not denying some Christians do circumcise and do so out of a misguided sense. It's not about identification though, it's about hygiene.)
Circumcision for the Jews is not related to masturbation. It is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. It designated the males in that nation, as belonging to God. And part of God's covenant. Circumcision didn't prevent people from sinning. It was an identifying mark.
Hence, Christians don't circumcise but are baptised. It is a sign of identification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Christians hijacked the pagan festival and renamed it Christmas.I prefer the pagan ideology, regarding the winter solstice and the new year.So winter festival for me.Especially as Jesus was born in September....More of an Autumn equinox baby.
Believe what you like. It doesn't worry me.
But tell me what is your evidence for an Autumn birth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Under Emperor Constantine, the Church in Rome began celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25 in 336. Some say the date was chosen to outshine the Sol Invictus and pagan celebrations. But there's much doubt around whether Christians had been trying to steal Sol Invictus' thunder.
I think that is not as true as you might like to think it is. Perhaps some evidence to support that proposition from his time might assist you.
I don't know when the birth of Jesus occurred specifically. I understand that some do suggest as you have above. But that is entirely motivated by those who wish to undermine all things Christian. Conveniently, it is at the time of other celebrations but that is not a reason to dispute his birth at that time. The truth is - there are a LIMITED number of days in a year. Hence, there is going to be a doubling up, tripling up on every date. My nephew obviously must be a fake because he was born on the 25th of December.
There are also a limited number of seasons in a year. And an even more limited number of long and short days of the year. Woopy do! For those who make so much of these events being used for any kind of celebration, you are geniuses, aren't you?
The Christian message is not tainted or diminished if we don't know the specific date. Only those who don't understand Christianity would think that such specificity is needed or that such logic is going to stop people from believing.
The interesting thing is that in the Hebrew Culture, as I understand, the same date is often applied to the beginning and end of things. For instance, the day the Jews entered Canaan was exactly the date of the Passover commencing the journey. This then brings an intriguing logic to the date of Jesus' birth. His death, we can essentially pinpoint to the Passover in that year. March 25. That's his end. Therefore his beginning is from when he was conceived, and working forwards for the pregnancy, nine months, = 25th December.
Is this possible? I don't know. It's intriguing. Is it true? I don't know and I don't care. But it does provide a rational for the date of Christmas which has some cultural background.
Created:
Posted in:
Sadly, though, most will never leap with joy like John the Baptist (Luke 1: 41). They will unfortunately, go through life without ever knowing the good news of the birth of the saviour of the world.
On the flip side however, every day all around the world, millions of people are rejoicing with this news. Their lives changed remarkably with the presence of peace and forgiveness and being adopted into the family of God.
Why anyone would reject this free gift is remarkable. And yet, the irrationality of refusing such a gift seems to be one of the banes of this world.
Merry Christmas people - and a happy and safe new year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep, I tend to agree with you.I much prefer more of a conversational forum.When presented well, a lot can be said in a few words.
True, but just because some present a few words, doesn't mean that it is said well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I imagine that they are preparing a thesis, as we speak.This is also a problem, a long thread is not appealing in my opinion.I didn't even read all the OP of this thread. Lol.
I guess you missed out then.
Ok.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I'm surprised you ever thought he was doing a good job.
And no I am not a fan of Trump.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
True. Even if someone is athiest, they should look into context and depth, not just simplicity. The bible is more dynamic and complex than greek mythology.
I agree. However, some of the Atheists on this site don't even understand that there is a context, let alone a context with depth. They play with words and think they are amusing or clever.
Still, where there is life, there is hope. And please don't confuse life with intelligence.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"Dont complain about the government."
Not a Christian argument. We are told to respect the government. We are told to submit to the Government. That is not the same as not complaining about the government. Many times in the OT and the NT the people of God complain about the government and on some occasions we are told their complaints went to very throne room of heaven and God did something about it. The story of Israel in Egypt is one example.
"Dont rebel against the government."
This is not a Christian argument without qualification. Christians do rebel against governments. Take Martin Luther for instance. Romans 13 uses the term authority not as a singular but as a plural. All forms of government are included. State, church, family. The very existence of these three types of institutions provide avenues for rebelling against a bad government. Christians rebel against communist governments which forbid bibles. They rebel against governments which tell them to stop preaching the gospel. Think Acts 4 where the Apostles said to the government - who shall we obey, Man or God? A clear rebellion against the government.
"Be satisfied with how much government pays you."
Not every country is a communist country which pays people. But people have a right to leave. No one has to stay if they don't like the pay. A silly and stupid argument.
"Obey the government."
Christians should obey the government unless it asks you to sin. Then it is right to disobey. This applies to church government and to family government as well. If you don't believe in sin, then you have a problem.
"Dont feel sad when government puts you in miserable situation, but keep serving the government."
Another silly argument. Christians are told to rejoice in all situations. This doesn't mean you need to walk around with a big goofy smile on your face. It does mean that you are aware that God is bigger than you and the so-called government who is trying to bring you down. Our sadness or happiness is not found in our circumstances, but in Christ. Again, the question of whether we keep serving or not serving will depend on the circumstances and how we might respond.
"Each government was put there by God."
I think each government at any particular time is put there by God. But this doesn't mean that 1. God approves of that government. 2. That you can't seek to have that government removed. 3. That this limits you in any particular way. The essence of saying that every government exists because of God is - to say that ultimate authority comes from God.
"Dont think about Earthly problems or what the government does to you, but think about your reward in Heaven"
Another misconstrued argument. Some people are too heavenly minded to be any earthly good and similarly some people are too earthly minded to be any heavenly good. The fact is - God has put humans on this earth to look after it and to be stewards. Yet it is true to say that our identity and joy is to be found in Christ. Not in the earthly things about us. Yet saying our identity and joy is found in Christ doesn't mean that we should stop looking after the world, or that we can't find joy in it too. The question comes down to loyalties and values.
These are teachings of the Bible.
Wrong. They are interpretations of it as you read it.
When read this way, you can obviously see that only a pure idiot would willingly follow these teachings.
Well you read it that way. You draw your own conclusions about yourself. And since you read it this way - you admit you are a pure idiot.
Christians have a moral duty to support every tyrannical government on Earth, because "each was put there by God".
Wrong. God putting a government in place doesn't imply his condoning of it anymore than the governments he put out of power.
In fact, any smart government would encourage Christianity, because Christianity literally commands people to obey the government while discouraging any kind of rational thinking.
Warped ones who think like you might see it as a smart move. Most don't see it that way and so most don't encourage it. In fact many actively discourage Christianity because it inevitably ends up being rebellious to the government. Not for rebelliousness sake, but out of loyalty to God. Hence why China has the fastest growing church in the world, underground church.
So yes, now we have discovered the true purpose of Christianity.
The true purpose of Christianity is to worship God and to enjoy him for ever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So prove it.
Prove the authority.
Prove what authority? The authority of God? The authority of the Bible? The authority of logic? The authority of existence? The authority of the State? The authority of academics? The authority of experience? The authority of authority? Above I clearly expressed it was axiomatic. That by definition means it can't be proved. An axiom cannot be proved. And if an axiom can be proved, then it is not an axiom by definition.
Prove the creation.
Are you suggesting there is no creation? Are you saying there are no creatures? No environment. No gases. No people. Or are you asking me to prove that God created the creation? And pray tell, dear Zed, what specific criteria would you accept as credible for that proof?
Prove the sin.
Hmmm, sin is anything that falls beneath the standard of God. Given there is NO evidence that you would accept that God exists, it is absurd to ask me to prove that sin exists. Yet you know evil exists in many different forms. You accept it exists despite your suppression of the truth about God. The whole world as it is, is heading on a path to destruction according to many, and doing so without God.
The fact that you are an atheist yet spend your time on a religious forum while the world is burning around you is clearly either a sign of someone who has lost the plot or is a sign for help. I suspect the latter.
When that job is conclusively done we can then move on to the possibility of a design flaw.
Wrong. I raised this subject based on a debate that has already been set. I didn't ask for the forum. This topic arose out of that debate and as such assumes the previous debate assumptions are relevant. IF you have an issue with this - why don't you go back and argue the toss with the last forum topic? The fact is you won't. You think all you need to do is repeat the same old mantra you do every other time. Repetition doesn't make what you said right last time. It doesn't make it right this time and it won't make it right next time.
I don't need to prove God exists. I don't need to prove God created the world or humanity. I don't need to prove that sin exists. I don't need to prove authority.
This topic of mine was raised as an extension of the argument that someone else raised that a perfect God can't make flawed beings, therefore since humans are flawed, God either doesn't exist or is flawed himself.
And the fact that you want to twist this discussion into something else, demonstrates you don't know how to address the points I made to refute that argument. That first topic assumed much and I have simply taken their assumptions and demonstrated its a poor argument. If you actually want to refute me, that would be nice. but at least play the game properly. And not as someone who doesn't actually understand what you are trying to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Who created the devil and/or allowed him to seduce humans?
What a great question! Who is the creator God who created your itsy bitty little devil? The one you think wins everything?
Apart from the generous concession you are making by asking that question, it surprises me that you still don't understand the concept of individual personal culpability.
The concession was nice. Thank you. I know you are simply attempting to move the goalposts. But that's ok. I accept your concession that humans at least were created very good without any flaws. And the corollary, that the temptation to sin arose from outside the closed system.
But the devil? Who created the devil? Do you mean before the devil became the devil? After all, historically, the bible and the church teach that before the devil became the devil, he was Lucifer, one of God's finest angels. One who created also very good. I think you will find that the traditional view is that Lucifer who also had roles as an antagonist or accuser was so full of himself, that he sinned out of pride, and so became what we know as the devil. Not a character with red shiny boots and twin horns and a pitchfork. Just an angel who has fallen and without any opportunity for repentance.
The question of course is how did Lucifer fall, if he were created very good without any flaws? And that too is a great question. I think the same applies to Satan as it does for humanity. He was created with free will. Of course, he didn't have a tree to eat from. And he probably already had quite supernatural powers and he probably already had a significantly longer life than humans. Not divine of course, but compared to humanity, a Demi-god of some description. Most people seeing or experiencing the power of Satan would put him into that category. But compared to the God of the Universe, he is less than a worm. Pitiful. And Hell and the Lake of Fire is reserved for him.
But how did this very good angel fall? Was it a flaw in his character? I don't know. I tend to think it is freedom which is the potential source of his downfall.
Free will is the choice to do good or to bad. It by itself is not a flaw. Even if it potentially could lead to sin.
God doesn't judge prior to people ACTUALLY committing sin. There is no evidence to support the idea that Satan was created flawed. It often staggers me how stupid Satan is. How blind and arrogant he is in his foolishness. Of course, Christ defeated him at the cross. Satan messed up. He thought killing Jesus was the way to win. He had no idea that Jesus' death was planned from before the beginning of the world. And it was intentional. And it was the evidence of victory. It's the cross, not the resurrection which is the victory for the Christian. It always continues to surprise me how ignorant people are on this doctrine. That's why Good Friday is the most sacred day of the year for the Christian. Not Christmas. Not Easter Sunday. But Good Friday.
I know this is not a satisfactory answer for you. I don't care really. Until your eyes are opened, you won't believe anyway. And I can only cast so many pearls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
To assume that humanity can sin, is to assume that humanity is answerable to a greater authoritySo to prove that sin is real and therefore a human flaw, you must first prove that there is a greater authority to answer to.Notwithstanding that, the notion that the greater authority is the creator of humanity must also be validated.
Try taking the fingers out of the ears and opening your eyes. It'll open the world to you.
I like you, but you for whatever reason, just like to wander around in the dark with your eyes closed.
Of course, humanity is answerable to a greater authority. Why else do you think people prefer to walk around with their eyes closed?
Sin is real. Sin is anything that falls short of the standards of God.
I don't have to prove what is axiomatic. And also what is clearly seen if people would open their eyes.
Humans didn't come from nowhere. You cannot continue to fall back on randomness and coincidence. That's a fool's errand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Flaws are not acts.Lol at you. Acts come from will. Flawed acts means flawed will. There is only so much space you can run to dodge this.Should carmakers stop making cars, because they sometimes have accidents?Okay, I hate repeating myself, but apparently I have to because you dont get it:You know that person A will do good if you create him.You know that person B will do evil if you create him.Why would anyone choose to create person B?This example did not imply "stop making people", but "stop making bad people".Now you may say "all people are bad" which might be true only according to the Bible, but even then the fact is that some people are much worse than others.Do you get it now?????
Talk about intentional conflation. For the record, I have never said all people are all bad. Please note there are two alls. I don't hold to the view that people are all as evil as they can possibly be. Again notice the all. The Bible doesn't say ALL people are ALL bad. Once more notice the two ALLS.
Every human is a mixture of good and bad. Your logical conundrum therefore falls into a logical fallacy since there are not just TWO types of people. Someone who is ALL good and someone who is ALL bad. After all both A and B will both do good and evil. And stop telling lies. You love repeating yourself. You do it frequently.
A car that is made perfectly without any flaws can still be used for a purpose it was not intended to be made for. That is the argument you need to address. And which you continue to avoid. You suggest that God should stop making bad people. Yet, the people made were good people. And they had not committed any sin. They did not have any flaws. We don't condemn people before they have ACTUALLY committed a crime. Nor does God.
Are some people worse than others? Obviously the answer is yes. But that's a red herring isn't it? It's a diversionary tactic. Again let me repeat myself, as you continue to demonstrate a reluctance to understand. God created Adam and Eve. They were very good and without flaw. The will was not flawed. It was very good. The temptation to sin came not from within the human will, but from outside. Indeed it came from the serpent. The devil. The human will considered the words of the Serpent and found them tantalising. Like a car owner who listens to another car owner who uses their car as a way of sharpening their knives and finds that intriguing, or a car owner that says to the other, drive the car at 200 kms an hour, not at the speed limit. the temptation came from outside the human. Yet you admit the human had a will. So unless a will has the ability to act or not act, or to do something, then we have a problem. You seem to be suggesting that the human has a will that can make decisions for itself, but that is a flaw. And yet a will that can't make a decision for itself, others would say is a flaw.
So your word sandwich is itself a nonsense. If the will can't decide to do right or wrong, then it is flawed. Yet you say the opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well if you figure it out, there is no point in me attempting to direct you.
As it were, I did say - "think Mystery". That was my starting point.
I'm sure a smart person like you can follow the logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Was humanity created?Need to answer the basics first Trade, before you go on to secondary hypotheses.
This is where you are incorrect dear Zed.
I am addressing or responding to the view that since humanity sinned, it must have been created in a flawed manner.
The presumption that God created is assumed in the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Interesting stuff. And plenty of speculation.
You might be right. But who could tell?
At least I know that others could arrive at my conclusions.
I believe that a valid interpretation must be one that more than one independent mind has arrived at. This of course doesn't make it the correct one. But at least it provides a rational basis for it.
Now perhaps that is what has happened with you? Or perhaps it is not.
Thanks for your thoughts. Needless to say though, it doesn't actually address my question. And that is about whether God created a flawed humanity or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Was humanity created flawed? Yes, let’s take all the historical estimates of child mortality and combine them with global data for recent decades to see what this tells us about humanity’s history.What is striking about the historical research is how similar child mortality rates were across a wide range of very different historical cultures: No matter where in the world a child was born, about half of them died. This is poor design.
Do you think it is impossible that a non-flawed human could do something that might cause itself and every other human to be flawed?
I take the view that only Adam and Eve were created without flaw. These two acted outside of the purpose for which they were made. Yes, they had the ability to do this, although not the freedom. Yet without this ability to act outside of its purpose, it could not be held morally responsible for its actions whether it complied with its purpose or not.
Yet this outside purpose - created a defect which became inherent for them and every individual after them.
Hence, it is totally acceptable to include all of the data you suggest above. I said only the first humans were created without defects and flaw. I have never indicated the rest are not. The only exception in my view is the person Jesus, who was born of both a divine and human origin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Those are some of the most disgusting mental gymnastics I have ever seen.Answer this simple question:Is it a flaw to disobey God?Yes?Then answer this question:Did God make humans with that flaw?No?But they have that flaw!God could have simply only created good people that have free will.Or let me make it simple so that you can understand.You know that person A will do good if you create him.You know that person B will do evil if you create him.Why would anyone choose to create person B?There is literally nothing good in creating person B. And to say that person B is without flaw is utter nonsense.Well, of course, I could go on about why free will cannot even possibly exist since choices can either be caused or uncaused, both options negating the idea of free will, but free will itself is irrelevant since it does not negate God's guilt in the matter.Even if murderer may have free will, creating that murderer knowing what he is makes you evil as much as he is.
LOL @ you.
So not one attempt at refuting anything I wrote. True to form.
Is it a flaw to disobey God? LOL @ you. No, it is not a flaw. It is a sin. Sin is not a flaw. It is an act. Flaws are not acts. Do you know the difference between a verb and a noun? Nope. I didn't think so.
Did God make people with a flaw? Nope. He created them very good. Without flaws. A flaw is a defect. A crack. A something that makes it less than what its purpose is suppose to be. God created humans with the knowledge of what is good and evil. He created them with the ability to choose to do good or to do evil. The ability to do something is not a flaw. It is in fact the design he made. It's like a car. It can be used for purposes other than transport. But if it is used for those other purposes, does that make it flawed? Of course not.
Hmm. If you know a person who is created can do something good or you create one knowing that it can do evil? Let's liken it to a car or a computer. Should carmakers stop making cars, because they sometimes have accidents? OR not make computers because some people might use them for bad purposes? The fact that someone uses a car or a computer for ill purposes - doesn't make the car or the computer flawed.
the person has a moral responsibility to do the right thing. But if they do something not for the right purpose, doesn't make it flawed.
Of course, once the person makes a poor choice, there might be an implication that it has caused itself a defect. But choosing to do something not for purpose is not itself a flaw. But doing something for which itself is not its purpose may well result in the person becoming defected. And indeed that is what the Christian church teaches. That humanity was created without flaw. Yet with the ability to make moral decisions for itself - it chose to go outside of purpose. And this outside of purpose resulted in a permanent defect for itself and its children.
Created:
Posted in:
A while ago, someone on this site was suggesting that God made humanity flawed since they were capable of sinning and inevitably sinned. I can't recall who said it. Nor can I be bothered searching to find where it was said. I disagreed with that characterisation at the time and I still do.
Yet, I would like to discuss further on this point.
I have suggested that the Bible expresses that God made humanity "very good". Indeed without flaw. Yet the question continued to be - why create a person who is capable of sinning? Surely God could simply have created a person with free will who can't sin? And isn't that what we see in heaven? People who are free and yet do not sin? And these are fair questions to an extent.
While researching a different topic, it struck me that in our legal system, to be found guilty of a crime requires not just a guilty act, but also an intention. And while this is a truism for the legal system, I think most people in society miss the point that intention forms part of the guilt along with the act itself.
Hence, in most Western Legal Systems, people need to be able to form intent in order to be found guilty of an offence. They need to be mature enough to realise that something is wrong. This is far more than knowing it was "naughty" or even that they might get in trouble. They have to know it is seriously wrong. Hence we typically have an age of criminal responsibility. In Australia that now is 12 years of age although in some specific jurisdictions, it is up to the age of 14.
Now, of course, that age of criminal responsibility can be rebutted depending upon the maturity of the individual child. But it is a legal presumption.
This, I think, is important.
For humanity to be morally responsible for their actions, indeed legally responsible for their conduct, and even to be considered more than an animal, more than a robot, required God to make humanity with certain attributes.
Firstly, they needed to know the difference between right and wrong.
Secondly, they needed to have the capacity to be able to do wrong.
Thirdly, they needed to know it was wrong to sin.
Without any of these attributes, humanity would simply be an animal that works according to instinct. Or else they would simply be a robot who did everything exactly as they were programmed to do. What they couldn't be - would be a moral and personally responsible human.
As our legal systems have articulated in this respect is entirely consistent with how God created humanity.
So the question remains, did humans know the difference between right and wrong? I think the story of Adam's fall clearly shows that he knew the difference between right and wrong. The story itself however muddies the water with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Was it the tree that gave Adam this knowledge or was the tree the provider of something else? Or did Adam know the difference between right and wrong before eating the tree?
I have discussed this at some length on this site with another member. I can't recall where that discussion took place. And I cannot be bothered looking for it.
Yet, at the time I suggested that humanity knew it was seriously wrong to take the fruit from that tree. They know this since they understood death to be a serious implication of it. Eve herself indicated to the serpent, we are not to eat it, even to touch it. Satan of course - suggested God didn't want them to eat it - since they would become like God. The point is - they knew it was objectively wrong to eat from the tree. Why? Because God has spoken and told them.
There is an issue that needs to be discussed that arises from this discussion. How did Adam and Eve become like God? They didn't take on immortality. They didn't take on supernatural powers. They didn't take on omniscience. So how did they become like God? Satan answers that in v.5 and his answer is also deceptive but helpful.
The answer is not that they suddenly became aware of the difference between right and wrong. They already knew it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God. They knew it was right to eat from every other tree. They knew it was wrong to eat from this one particular tree. And if we are honest with ourselves, knowing the difference between right and wrong in our world, doesn't make us like God. Most of us have been taught what is right and what is wrong. But knowing that doesn't make us like God. Yes, it separates us from the animals who work by instinct. And it separates us from robots who simply do whatever they are programmed to do. But it doesn't make us like God in any manner at all.
So if learning the difference between right and wrong doesn't make us like God, what is Satan saying in 3:5 and what does God himself mean in 4:22? It is the difference between learning what right and wrong is - and knowing what is right and wrong. The Hebrew word for knowing is more than mere academic or theoretical knowledge. We see it used for instance in "Adam knew his wife and she conceived." And also in other parts of the bible that say that these people "knew the LORD". It is a word that means intimate. That goes into experience.
In Religious circles, one of the attributes of God is that God alone determines what is right and what is wrong. Hence, Christians look to the bible as God's words and say - this is right and this is wrong. Not because Christians decide - but based on the view that the Bible is God's words and are therefore truth and the determiner of right and wrong. It is wrong to murder because God says so. It is wrong to commit adultery because God says so. It is right to be faithful to your spouse because God says so. Now I might agree with all of these things, but not because I determined they were right or they were wrong. The State determines laws and as such has godlike powers. The church does the same.
Yet, this is what happened when Adam and Eve took the fruit. They determined, they took on the view to determine what was right and what was wrong. Hence the first thing they did after "their eyes were opened", was to call what God had declared good, "shameful".
This is what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was about. Not about giving them knowledge about good and evil, but the power to determine what it is themselves. That is how they became godlike. And we would agree I think in principle, that the power to determine what is right is much more powerful than simply knowing what is right. The courts of our land determine what the law is - that is powerful. The legislators determine what is right and wrong. That is powerful. But you and me knowing or understanding what the law is - separates us from the animals, but it is not as powerful and comes nowhere close to the power of those who make it and determine what it is.
So, not only did they need to know what is right and wrong, they needed to have the capacity, or the ability to do wrong. If they didn't have this then they could not be morally responsible for anything. Indeed without this capacity to do wrong, they would be nothing more than an animal or a robot. This is what distinguishes humans from animals.
So no flaws, just the ability to do wrong. But alongside that also the ability to do right. The ability to choose right must also imply the ability to do wrong. Unless someone is God or godlike. Then what they decide to do is entirely up to themselves. This is why God is said to be unable to sin. Whatever he does is right. Humans by eating the tree decided they didn't want to listen to God and his rules. The problem of course is they were still subject to God. Hence he threw them out of the garden. They went out and did pretty much what they wanted. Romans 1 gives us a picture of how this has turned out.
It is possible that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is simply giving the knowledge of good and evil to its recipients and they didn't know it was right or wrong to take the fruit. It is possible that God forbidding them the fruit of the tree was wrong too. Some would argue that this is the case. The problem however with that view is culture. And a terrible understanding of the differences between Greek and Hebrew Philosophy and theology and morality. Only a very poor student would come to that conclusion.
The Greeks following Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, held to a view of right and wrong which is very different to the Hebrew view. Right and wrong for them (the Greeks) were like absolute natural laws that existed in form, somewhere, and everyone including God was subject to these objective laws. People who hold to this view are those who want to hold God to account. They think God is subject to the law rather than the source of them.
The Hebrew idea is quite different. It said "All laws flow from the character of God. Hence, all laws are subject to God."
So although the view of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil can simply be understood as them learning what is right and wrong, that requires us to drop completely the Hebrew idea of such things and instead drop into it a Greek understanding. And if we were reading the NT and not the Hebrew, then there is such a possibility, but the Genesis story IS NOT Greek and was written prior to three Greek Philosophers.
The Greek Idea. The Hebrew Idea
absolutes laws God
god law
angels /man angels/man
animals / etc animals / etc
In summary, humanity was not made flawed but rather was made "very good" without any flaws. Yet he was made morally and legally responsible for his actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do I need to do your homework for you?
But let me simply state, have a read of Ephesians. That's the book just after Galatians.
And think "mystery". Your pal will like that since it has to do with secrets. However, this is the real mystery that was hidden. And that really gets up the nose of Satan. He missed it. He got sucked in. And he was defeated since he ended up doing exactly the opposite of what he thought he was doing.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I reject the idea that anyone can be scholarly about about non-scholastic assumptions.
So you would reject evolution and any so-called scholarly discussion about the beginning of the universe? Perhaps you might address what makes something scholarly or non-scholarly.
Which isn't to say that non- scholastic assumptions don't evolve into broader subjects.
Cake and eating. Or a walking back. Backflip. This statement means nothing. It is fluff. No offence.
So I would differentiate between a hypothetical text and the ongoing historical and social ramifications of a hypothetical text.
The topic is in relation to Christians advocating for a monotheistic deity. The author and others suggest that the view that many deities were based around local regions was not just the predominant view but the original view and that the Christian monotheistic view is a later view. The Christian view, the Jewish View, and the Islamic view - is historically that monotheism was the original view. It is noted that there is a non-historical view within Christian and other circles that this is not true; albeit this non-historical view is relatively modern and primarily with the so-called liberal elements of the church.
Both sides of this argument have their experts and their reasons for their conclusions. The ongoing social ramifications of either view are subjective. I suggest that the view of polytheistic deities is an Eastern Phenomenon. And has migrated into the West via multiculturalism. It is seen within the mystical and experience-based culture we have now. Hence on a philosophical base, we have moved from modernism to post-modernism. From reason to experience.
All worldviews are undergirded by theology. Theology is inescapable. We all tend to focus on the one or the many. On a monotheistic god or many gods. Atheism is the ultimate polytheistic view. For is makes every individual their own unique god. For without a real god existing, then everyone is their own god. And therefore everyone everywhere is a god. Hence multi - theism or polytheism. Everyone does right in their own eyes. They determine the rules for themselves and bow only to those who have real genuine power like the state and perhaps the rich and powerful. Then they reveal only that they are slaves.
The monotheists amongst us - still tend to believe that truth exists. Objective truth and objective right and wrong. They don't believe that individuals make their own rules for their own lives. This is the issue.
Christianity, following the historical views of the Jewish bible believes there is only one GOD. We think and hold to the view that humanity rejects this and makes gods in their own images. They want to be masters of their own fate. The God of the Bible says - no. I am the God who determines the way things are.
I suggest the reason there are so many religions and views is because there was an original - that was copied. Or counterfeited.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
We should also remember that this single passage is not the be all end all. There are other passages that, when combined, develop the means to love others and ourselves.So hard to find when we focus so much on single lines eh?
Fair comment. There is much to say in the Scriptures about love. Sadly, most people are looking for ways to suppress the truth rather than learn from God.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, sure, you knew my faith in Jesus was not strong. But its kinda hard to stay in faith when other Christians call you indian. Its like they are saying that you are not good enough for Christianity. No wonder atheism is on the rise. Every Christian thinks his particular version of faith is the only right one and then mocks all others. I dont need that shit in life.
I honestly, don't know what your problem is. India has many millions of Christians living there and around the world. It is not anti-Christian to be Indian.
Your faith must have been non-existent to see this as an insult against Christians. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that you felt insulted given your previous pseudonym, Harikrish.
You are Indian. You are also Hindu. You've never been a Christian, with strong or weak faith. Just never been one.
My faith may not be the perfectly correct one, but it is deemed to fit well within the range of Mainstream Christianity. I am Presbyterian. But I don't reject Baptists, or Episcopalians, or Lutherans, or Church of Christ, or many Charismatic Churches. I don't reject the Orthodox or the Catholics. I do take exception to those who fall outside of the overarching traditional views of Christianity as understood by the early creeds of the church. Hence, I have a shorter tolerance span for the LDS, the SDA, the JWs, and many Charismatics, particularly of the Oneness ideas. I reject everything to do with the so-called Baptist Westboro cult.
I have a limited time for the Salvation Army and the Uniting Church.
But the churches I wouldn't have an issue with - are the ones that fall within the parameters of the majority of the church.
There are thousands of denominations in the world, as there are in EVERY religion. Yet, the vast majority of each religion is predominantly not divided but united on those things which matter.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Your duty is to show loveIs it your duty too? You are the reason I left Christianity. You kept calling me indian...
Absolutely, it is my duty too.
You never were a Christian except in your mind. I called you an Indian because for some reason you were ashamed of it.
Would you like me to stop calling you Indian?
Blaming me is kind of cute, despite its intentional misdirection.
I love everyone according to the 10 commandments. I don't commit adultery. I don't steal. I don't bear false witness. I don't covet. I don't murder. I love God, I don't misuse his name etc.
Of course, I am not saying I have never made mistakes. I have made plenty. I swore at a member on this site a few years back. I'm sure he will bring it up just to rub my face in it. Yet, I apologised, I admitted it was wrong. I indicated that I wouldn't do it again. And I haven't. So far as I can recall.
I do show sarcasm. Perhaps that is my flaw. and perhaps I need to change. I do like to ridicule the ridiculous. I like to follow Elijah in that manner.
The fact here however is that you have intentionally tried to mock the original intention of Jesus for reasons of your own. The problem is - as often is the case- you don't understand the text in the first place, or if you do, you intentionally ridicule it anyway.
You said you were a Christian. Saying it - doesn't make it so. Lots of people claim to be all sorts of things. Claiming so - doesn't make it so. I watched with interest when you came to this site under this current name and waited to see what you would say and how you would react. It didn't take long for you to reveal your true self. A leopard doesn't change their spots.
Hence, it is a lie to say I stopped you from being a Christian.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It is saying, to treat others how you would like to be treated. There is nothing in there about expecting others to do what you want.
The idea is simple. If you want to know how to love others - the way to do it is to treat others as you would like to be treated.
If you want people to respect you, treat others with respect.
But the important thing here is - you are to do this - EVEN when and if others NEVER treat you this way. It is not a formula to get what you want. It is an explanation of how to love others.
If you expect love back, your problem. Your duty is to show love.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I reject the scholars.
okay.
All of them or just some of them? Or just the ones whom you disagree with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
And the ironic thing is - you wouldn't have eyes or fingers or ears unless God provided them to you. Let alone the brain.Yes, God provided the means for torture. God gave us body and brain so that he can torture us. How else would God torture me for all eternity? Again, I asked the example of love, not hate. But Christians often confuse cruelty with love, especially the priests.Any more irrelevant points you wish to make? Jesus's suicide didnt benefit me in any way, so that too is irrelevant. Now, are you done trying to derail my topic with irrelevant things?
I have already demonstrated Jesus' death was not suicide. Repeating your lies doesn't change the facts.
God demonstrated his love in many ways. I have given several examples. It is clear you don't want to discuss, just assert rubbish.
Typical rhetoric by yourself. You are unable to have an intelligent discussion.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Monotheism existed prior to the notion of polytheismYou are the master of saying the most irrelevant things. I bow to the master. Please master, teach me your wicked ways.
It is entirely relevant to this topic. You made an assertion that is false. I provided an assertion with reason to demonstrate that falsity.
I am not your master. I do not teach wicked ways.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
It is believed that polytheism first appeared in the ancient Mesopotamian (specifically Sumer) region as far back as 5,000 years ago, or more.Many scholars believe that the first recorded instance of a monotheistic religion was in Egypt circa 1350 BC under the rule of the pharaoh Akhenaten. Egyptian religion was polytheistic in nature, and Akhenaten's departure from this tradition was a radical change in Egyptian society.
According to some. Many scholars reject this view too.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
He was forced to do somethingYes, he had no other choice.
Yes, my words were probably a little extravagant. He felt he had no other choice if he wanted to pursue this topic.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I said I wouldnt make this post, yet here I amSo you lied.No surprise there. Christians lie all the time. They lie so much it makes sane person's head hurt.
That's not a lie. He was forced to do something he didn't want to do - because the other person is too cowardly to have a proper debate where he can be suitably destroyed not just by his opponent but by the members as a whole.
He wasn't being deceptive - which is the intent of a lie.
He was actually being transparent - the opposite of a lie.
IT's no surprise then that you have tried to deceptively put a spin on this to say the exact opposite of what he was doing. It's your MO, isn't it?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Basically, original Christians came to polytheists and said that they should accept Jesus, which polytheists did because polytheists are allowed to worship as many Gods as possible and Jesus seemed like a fine God to worship.However, then Christians, after gaining power, changed the whole story.Christians from the start tried to turn polytheists into monotheists, but it was mostly just talk.But after gaining power, Christians used force to wipe out polytheism from the face of the Earth.Christians basically shot themselves in the foot, because Polytheists will never accept them again and no Polytheist will ever trust a Christian again.In fact, all Christian actions did was prove that no one should trust Christians.
Monotheism existed prior to the notion of polytheism.
It was the first religion. Many people rejected this - since having ONE God is troubling since it means if you don't follow that one God, then you are in trouble. Hence, humanity wanted to make god and gods after their own image. Or in ways they could control. Polytheism is simply gods made after people - and their ideas of what god or gods should be.
They don't want a GOD who says - "I am who I Am". The "I AM" is the only God who is not made in man's image since he stands alone from man's image.
The Greek gods and the Roman gods are just like humans with their flaws - except they have superpowers. Superior to us in power, but still subject to the same flaws that humans have. This is the same for every other god except the God of the Bible.
Christians didn't shoot themselves in the foot. And even a more objective person would recognise that the Jews, who existed prior to the Christians, worshiped a monotheistic God.
Created: