# What is the purpose of the Athiest, Agnostics and Apologetics sub-section?



## ambush80 (Dec 23, 2010)

Is this a place to discuss religious and spiritual issues as they relate to atheists and agnostics or is this a place to corral the non-believers so that they can be proslelytized to all at once?

If a Muslim came on here and started telling Christians that they were going to Muslim He11 and that they were abominations to the Muslim God,  would they garner infractions?   I think they would.   

I think they made this section to keep people who don't believe in the Christian God out of the Spiritual Discussions and Study section,  where they don't really discuss or study spirituality, only Christianity.  They created and named this sub-section Atheists, Agnostics and Apologetics but they never really want to discuss any issues as they relate to the sub-section.  It's just another place to proselytize.   How can one engage only those people that are interested in true discussion and ignore those that are only interested in vomiting scripture when this is clearly the place where such behavior should be criticized?


----------



## gtparts (Dec 23, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Is this a place to discuss religious and spiritual issues as they relate to atheists and agnostics or is this a place to corral the non-believers so that they can be proslelytized to all at once?
> 
> If a Muslim came on here and started telling Christians that they were going to Muslim He11 and that they were abominations to the Muslim God,  would they garner infractions?   I think they would.
> 
> I think they made this section to keep people who don't believe in the Christian God out of the Spiritual Discussions and Study section,  where they don't really discuss or study spirituality, only Christianity.  They created and named this sub-section Atheists, Agnostics and Apologetics but they never really want to discuss any issues as they relate to the sub-section.  It's just another place to proselytize.   How can one engage only those people that are interested in true discussion and ignore those that are only interested in vomiting scripture when this is clearly the place where such behavior should be criticized?



I guess this forum seems to be a barren piece of "real state" because it is hard for those who believe nothing to plumb the depths of nothing and for those who are thoroughly uncertain to have an opinion beyond "I don't know". That pretty much leaves the matter of apologetics. I have yet to see much in the way of Islamic, Judaic, Hindu, ........ apologetics being presented. Perhaps they are disinterested in the persuasion of the lost to faith in their particular beliefs. 

Remember, you are welcome to step into the other forums, but in total honesty, do you really have something to add or is it all consistently negative in nature? I choose to believe there is still hope for many, yourself included, to find the truth in what Jesus has so graciously offered. I pray this time of year brings you all you need.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 23, 2010)

You just proved his point.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 23, 2010)

drippin' rock said:


> You just proved his point.




We just ain't no darn good.


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 23, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> We just ain't no darn good.


 
Neither am I.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 23, 2010)

StriperAddict said:


> Neither am I.




Is it mocking you to tell you how terribly sad it is that you think that?  

And which is the bigger sleight, me telling you that He11 doesn't exist or you telling me that I'm going there?


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 23, 2010)

*I didn't explain my post, and I'm sorry.*



ambush80 said:


> Is it mocking you to tell you how terribly sad it is that you think that?
> 
> And which is the bigger sleight, me telling you that He11 doesn't exist or you telling me that I'm going there?


 
I didn't mock you, I agreed that I'm no good...  apart from the mercy of Christ.  The cross of Christ tells me the entire race is on the same playing field (we are ALL sinners that need God's mercy and grace), but thru the cross we can be restored to fellowship/friendship with God.  Period.  No self righteousness, because I don't posess any.  Check the following (_emphasis added_):
*Isaiah 64:6*
_All of us_ have become like one who is unclean, and _all our righteous acts are like *filthy* *rags*_; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.


Also, your eternal destiny is in your hands not mine. As long as you are on this side of eternity, you have just as much right to the mercy and love God thru Christ as anyone else.  In fact, God loves you more than you could imagine, right where you are at.  I'm sorry if there was ever anything I posted that said otherwise.  God  "believes in you", even if you do not now believe in Him.

Ok, enough for now, I hope this helps. But at this point I'd agree I've gone way over the 'off topic' limit, but your response got me to say only those things I believe for you and all those that hear the message of Christ.


----------



## holler tree (Dec 23, 2010)

drippin' rock said:


> You just proved his point.



Really ? I saw it more like he was answering a question.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 23, 2010)

holler tree said:


> Really ? I saw it more like he was answering a question.



Do you know what "apologetics" means?  Clearly GTparts was not engaging my post from an apologetics standpoint.


----------



## BRANCHWYNN (Dec 23, 2010)

The BEST THAT I AM IS A FILTHY RAG. But GOD loves me anyway.


----------



## ted_BSR (Dec 23, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Is this a place to discuss religious and spiritual issues as they relate to atheists and agnostics or is this a place to corral the non-believers so that they can be proslelytized to all at once?
> 
> If a Muslim came on here and started telling Christians that they were going to Muslim He11 and that they were abominations to the Muslim God,  would they garner infractions?   I think they would.
> 
> I think they made this section to keep people who don't believe in the Christian God out of the Spiritual Discussions and Study section,  where they don't really discuss or study spirituality, only Christianity.  They created and named this sub-section Atheists, Agnostics and Apologetics but they never really want to discuss any issues as they relate to the sub-section.  It's just another place to proselytize.   How can one engage only those people that are interested in true discussion and ignore those that are only interested in vomiting scripture when this is clearly the place where such behavior should be criticized?



Huh?

Ambush- I do not always agree with your posts pre AAA or now, but I always enjoy them, and I respect them as well. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions and beliefs. You are not going to convince me, just like I am not going to convince you.

This sub section does seem to be a back room reserved for fights, but I don't want to fight. I just speak my mind and heart when I am on here, most likely, just like yourself.

Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays, however you like, Joy or something, Peace? Have fun? and a Happy New Year!


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 24, 2010)

BRANCHWYNN said:


> The BEST THAT I AM IS A FILTHY RAG. But GOD loves me anyway.



Another unsubstantiated statement of faith, devoid of any apologetic stance.  What gives?  What's the point of this?


----------



## Triathloncoach (Dec 24, 2010)

Leo Tolstoy, an extremely devout Christian said it best IMHO
"No one really knows until they die. And then they know everything. Or they just stop asking" 

I always considered myself a life long atheist, but it's difficult for me to argue with the above. And if you are being intellectually honest, it's tough to say with certainty that a god exists.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 24, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Is this a place to discuss religious and spiritual issues as they relate to atheists and agnostics or is this a place to corral the non-believers so that they can be proslelytized to all at once?



Seems obvious by the title of the SF.  It's a place for A&A to pontificate and people to faith to defend theirs.


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 24, 2010)

The purpose of the room is for people who like to debate the existence of God/higher being to come here and do so. You are free here to explain or explain away God in any manner you feel free to do so. 

In reality this will never work because believers use the Bible which non-believers do not trust, and non-believers use science and reasoning which believers do not completely disregard but also do not place as a higher authority than Scripture. 

It is round and round argument that really doesnt get either side anywhere.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 24, 2010)

Triathloncoach said:


> Leo Tolstoy, an extremely devout Christian said it best IMHO
> "No one really knows until they die. And then they know everything. Or they just stop asking"
> 
> I always considered myself a life long atheist, but it's difficult for me to argue with the above. And if you are being intellectually honest, it's tough to say with certainty that a god exists.




Seems like that would only happen if you retained any memory.  He pre-supposes a "soul" or some sort of remaining consciousness.  What would be the purpose of that?


----------



## gtparts (Dec 24, 2010)

drippin' rock said:


> You just proved his point.



I think you missed my point. 

If the atheist has no belief in the specifics of any religious tenets, disavows the reality of a spiritual realm of any kind, is utterly convinced that there is nothing supernatural, then what is there to explore or discuss? The atheist is completely disarmed because he cannot prove a negative. He can only speak against the rationality of the deist's position, yet many who appear to be completely rational also believe in a god. They simply cannot reconcile this apparent contradiction. This is where there is an impasse. Either the deists "gets" something that the atheist does not "get" or the deist fails to "get" something that the atheist "gets". 

Since many studies indicate (no, I'll not waste my time posting the sources. They have been reported on the news, in Readers Digest, psychology and medical journals, etc.) that deists generally enjoy a longer and more stable, productive and rewarding life, I suspect that they "get" something that the others do not. That is just my opinion based on the reports I have read and heard. You are welcome to your own.

Likewise, the agnostic lacks any conviction on the matter of religion or spirituality because the position is self-limiting. It hinges entirely on whether they, at any time, come to believe that a god does or does not exist. The position is incompatible with the atheist point of view and with the deist point of view. When the agnostic has said "I do not know.", he has "fired his first and only shot". At that point, it is clear they have decided not to decide. What else do they have to offer? Riding the fence just avoids making a decision, which is OK, really, what are they waiting for...... scientific proof that a god exists? ...... scientific proof that a god does NOT exist? As I have said before, the God, the God of Israel will not submit to being evaluated on the basis of the science that He created and sustains. If the intricate, orderly systems of science don't direct one to the conclusion that there is a god, a creator of incredible, uncomprehendable power and wisdom, one will probably never come to know God as He is.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 24, 2010)

Ok, I agree.  There really is no argument to be had.  At the end of the day, Creationism cannot be validated, nether can the Big Bang Theory.  One chooses to believe and that is it.   A christian may feel in his bones that God is there and present in his life every day.  An evolutionist may have no doubt there is no God.  

Merry Christmas.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 24, 2010)

drippin' rock said:


> Ok, I agree.  There really is no argument to be had.  At the end of the day, Creationism cannot be validated, nether can the Big Bang Theory.  One chooses to believe and that is it.   A christian may feel in his bones that God is there and present in his life every day.  An evolutionist may have no doubt there is no God.
> 
> Merry Christmas.



When you relegate "magic" to an absolute last resort explanation for the mysteries of life, that's when the REAL interesting conversations start.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 27, 2010)

drippin' rock said:


> Ok, I agree.  There really is no argument to be had.  At the end of the day, Creationism cannot be validated, nether can the Big Bang Theory.  One chooses to believe and that is it.   A christian may feel in his bones that God is there and present in his life every day.  An evolutionist may have no doubt there is no God.
> 
> Merry Christmas.



Exactly the point of the thread "why choose whats..."


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 2, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Is this a place to discuss religious and spiritual issues as they relate to atheists and agnostics or is this a place to corral the non-believers so that they can be proslelytized to all at once?
> 
> If a Muslim came on here and started telling Christians that they were going to Muslim He11 and that they were abominations to the Muslim God,  would they garner infractions?   I think they would.
> 
> I think they made this section to keep people who don't believe in the Christian God out of the Spiritual Discussions and Study section,  where they don't really discuss or study spirituality, only Christianity.  They created and named this sub-section Atheists, Agnostics and Apologetics but they never really want to discuss any issues as they relate to the sub-section.  It's just another place to proselytize.   How can one engage only those people that are interested in true discussion and ignore those that are only interested in vomiting scripture when this is clearly the place where such behavior should be criticized?



You're exactly right. If an atheist/agnostic expresses their views on the other forums they are told to take it over here but the religious are free to express their views in this forum.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're exactly right. If an atheist/agnostic expresses their views on the other forums they are told to take it over here but the religious are free to express their views in this forum.



Unashamedly quoting scripture with no intention of presenting an apologetic position.  Classic double standard.


----------



## apoint (Jan 2, 2011)

In the beggining there was nothing and nothing exploded. Then after a billion years nothing became slime and another billion became man. But first only some of the monkeys became man while some stayed monkeys. Give it up folks, not in your wildest dreams does this work. Stevie Wonder at 3 yrs old can see that.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 2, 2011)

apoint,

Scientific claims are backed by evidence and that evidence refutes the Genesis creation account. You have a greater loyalty to an ancient text than to reality and that's a shame.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> apoint,
> 
> Scientific claims are backed by evidence and that evidence refutes the Genesis creation account. You have a greater loyalty to an ancient text than to reality and that's a shame.



Reality!!
Has science ever been about reality?
I thought science was about theories.  Possibilities.

Science changes it's mind continually.  What was fact just half a century ago is no longer fact.  We're told that "new discoveries" have been made.

I'll stay with those ancient, proven text.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 2, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Reality!!
> Has science ever been about reality?
> I thought science was about theories.  Possibilities.
> 
> ...



Yes Ronnie reality. How the world around us works. What the fossil record, geology, cosmology, molecular biology, etc have to say about our origins. New discoveries are indeed made. It's a strength that science changes as our understanding expands. Conversely it's a weakness that scripture is static. You "know" just as men two thousand years ago "knew" that the first human man preceded the first human female and that the first female was made out of the rib bone of the first man. Not only is the bible not proven, more and more over time gets disproven.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 2, 2011)

I think, in all fairness, should finish what I said about science.
I'm glad for what science and technologies have done for the society I live in.  New discoveries and abilities every week.

Without God imparting knowledge to us, would we really have "invented" electricity, or a light bulb.
Or the first radio?  Where did the idea even come from?  And where did the technology come from for such a complicated instrument?
Maybe from God.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 2, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I think, in all fairness, should finish what I said about science.
> I'm glad for what science and technologies have done for the society I live in.  New discoveries and abilities every week.
> 
> Without God imparting knowledge to us, would we really have "invented" electricity, or a light bulb.
> ...



Or maybe not. If it were left to god we would still be living in caves.

To quote Mark Twain,

"If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself."


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 2, 2011)

Why do they have "Compound Bow and Trad Bow" forums. They are all bows.

Why do they have Deer hunting, small game hunting and varmint hunting forums. It is all hunting.

Why do they have freshwater and saltwater forums. They are all fish.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Why do they have "Compound Bow and Trad Bow" forums. They are all bows.
> 
> Why do they have Deer hunting, small game hunting and varmint hunting forums. It is all hunting.
> 
> Why do they have freshwater and saltwater forums. They are all fish.



Exactly.  That is why it would be inappropriate to go into the fly fishing forum and talk about how stupid barbless hooks are.  The same goes for entering this forum and regurgitating scripture.  This is not the place for that.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 3, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Exactly.  That is why it would be inappropriate to go into the fly fishing forum and talk about how stupid barbless hooks are.  The same goes for entering this forum and regurgitating scripture.  This is not the place for that.



If you were in charge, then it could be the atheists and agnostics forum.  As it were/is, they added apologetics, so as distasteful as you find it, I am certain the scripture regurgitation will continue. Please enjoy.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Apologetics is not regurgitating scripture.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Apologetics is not regurgitating scripture.



Please enlighten me to what it realy is.


----------



## TTom (Jan 6, 2011)

Perhaps a visit to dictionary.com is in order. 

1. the branch of theology concerned with the defence and rational justification of Christianity


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 6, 2011)

TTom said:


> Perhaps a visit to dictionary.com is in order.
> 
> 1. the branch of theology concerned with the defence and rational justification of Christianity



Interesting that dictionary dot com has the word "defense" misspelled.

Anyway, concerning your post, I put up a thread about  Apologetics  with some findings that no one bothered to check out.  At least not seriously.  Oh well, if some of the doubters won't have a look at a man's life work in the proof of scripture, it's to their shame.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 6, 2011)

The British spell it with a c.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The British spell it with a c.



Thanks, I didn't know


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 6, 2011)

And how would you have me rationally defend my faith? Should I quote a math or a physics book? Perhaps Descartes, Socrates, Stephen Hawkins, or Atlashunter's whimsical mockeries would rationally defend my faith.

Your fear of the Word of God solidifies it's truth and potency. The _"You can fight, but not with that weapon" _attitude tells me the Bible is the single most important tool in my arsenal. *No sir, I will not lay down my sword!*

Ephesians 6:10-18


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 6, 2011)

I like Webster's better.

Definition of APOLOGETICS
1: systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine) 
2: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 6, 2011)

If scripture may be used as a defense of itself then do you accept the divinity claims of all holy books?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 6, 2011)

What looks like a sword to you looks like a wet noodle to the rest of us.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What looks like a sword to you looks like a wet noodle to the rest of us.



Then why do you insist I put it down?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If scripture may be used as a defense of itself then do you accept the divinity claims of all holy books?



I do not believe them mainly because no other man claimed to be God.

But if a Muslim was going to try and convince of the validity of his faith, I would not argue that he could not use the Koran to do so.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I do not believe them mainly because no other man claimed to be God.
> 
> But if a Muslim was going to try and convince of the validity of his faith, I would not argue that he could not use the Koran to so.



Actually Jesus is not unique in that respect (if he really did claim divinity) but that is beside the point. Do you believe every religious text that claims to be the product of a god, is because it says so?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Actually Jesus is not unique in that respect (if he really did claim divinity) but that is beside the point. Do you believe every religious text that claims to be the product of a god, is because it says so?



Name one.

No, I do not believe that every religious text is truth.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> No, I do not believe that every religious text is truth.



Then you should understand why using scripture to defend scripture, especially against those who don't believe it to begin with is futile. It wouldn't work on you so why do you try it with others?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Then you should understand why using scripture to defend scripture, especially against those who don't believe it to begin with is futile. It wouldn't work on you so why do you try it with others?



Answer the question. Who else (significant religious figure) claimed to be God?

I do not use scripture to defend scripture.  I use it to defend truth. No logical method can prove it. That is it's beauty. No words from man can disprove it.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Answer the question. Who else (significant religious figure) claimed to be God?



You said no other man claimed to be God. MANY men have claimed divinity. Jesus didn't become a significant religious figure until decades after he supposedly claimed divinity. Maybe one day someone else who claims to be God will gather a large following. Apparently that's all it takes to convince you.



ted_BSR said:


> I do not use scripture to defend scripture. I use it to defend truth.



For you truth and scripture are one and the same aren't they? So why are you parsing words?



ted_BSR said:


> No logical method can prove it. That is it's beauty. No words from man can disprove it.



An unfalsifiable claim that can't be proven. I got a whole bag full of those. How many more would you like to buy? I'll cut you a great deal on them since they impress you so much.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You said no other man claimed to be God. MANY men have claimed divinity. Jesus didn't become a significant religious figure until decades after he supposedly claimed divinity. Maybe one day someone else who claims to be God will gather a large following. Apparently that's all it takes to convince you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I sense in you a great need to find truth. I pray that you will find it.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Jesus didn't become a significant religious figure until decades after he supposedly claimed divinity.


 
Try the book of  Acts (Ch 2 ~link~) , starting with the Ascension of Christ. After Jesus was taken up, 12 men continued "the message" and turned the world upside down. 

<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-26997>47</SUP> ... And the Lord _added to their number daily_ those who were being saved.


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 10, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Answer the question. Who else (significant religious figure) claimed to be God?
> 
> I do not use scripture to defend scripture.  I use it to defend truth. No logical method can prove it. That is it's beauty. No words from man can disprove it.



First off, let me say that I enjoy this forum and am very glad its here. But since you keep asking "who else?" I feel compelled to say a little something. I am not a history major but I don't mind stating something that opened my eyes a little.
The next time you are on the internet and bored, or just want to read something a little contradicting, look up the greek sky god Horus, who was centuries before jesus christ. The similarities are astonishing. Both were concieved by a virgin mother, both had a foster father named joseph, both were born in a cave or stable, both birthdays were around winter solstice, both birth announcements were made by angels, the ritual age of both was 12, both had a break in their life history between 12 and 30, birth were baptised in a river, both were baptised at 30. The list goes on and on. Horus may not be significant enough for your standards but I invite you to study it a little. Things like this make me seriously doubt that the guy behind the pulpit in the whit buckle shoes and the opal rings has any idea


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> First off, let me say that I enjoy this forum and am very glad its here. But since you keep asking "who else?" I feel compelled to say a little something. I am not a history major but I don't mind stating something that opened my eyes a little.
> The next time you are on the internet and bored, or just want to read something a little contradicting, look up the greek sky god Horus, who was centuries before jesus christ. The similarities are astonishing. Both were concieved by a virgin mother, both had a foster father named joseph, both were born in a cave or stable, both birthdays were around winter solstice, both birth announcements were made by angels, the ritual age of both was 12, both had a break in their life history between 12 and 30, birth were baptised in a river, both were baptised at 30. The list goes on and on. Horus may not be significant enough for your standards but I invite you to study it a little. Things like this make me seriously doubt that the guy behind the pulpit in the whit buckle shoes and the opal rings has any idea



He was an Egyptian god, and in NO WAY is similar to Jesus Christ.


----------



## BRANCHWYNN (Jan 11, 2011)

Horas died too....just like Budah. Jesus died and on the third day he arose. He lives, that's the difference. In spite of whether the man behind the pulpit has a little or a lot of sin in his life, he is a man and vessel used by God Almighty.


----------



## 1handkneehigh (Jan 11, 2011)

I remember a man who claimed to be god like Jesus.  In many ways he is similar to Jesus.  He has his followers, he is baptised, and in the end he was persecuted by his government.  Yet people have labeled him as insane. I believe his name is David Koresh.  Just wait thousand years from now half of the world will believe in him.



StriperAddict said:


> And the Lord _added to their number daily_ those who were being saved.



And the lord brainwashed to their number daily.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

Add Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda and Michael Travesser to the list.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2011)

1handkneehigh said:


> I remember a man who claimed to be god like Jesus.  In many ways he is similar to Jesus.  He has his followers, he is baptised, and in the end he was persecuted by his government.  Yet people have labeled him as insane. I believe his name is David Koresh.  Just wait thousand years from now half of the world will believe in him.


You are correct, in the same way either Jesus Christ was insane, or He was the son of God





> And the lord brainwashed to their number daily.


Care to back this claim up?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You are correct, in the same way either Jesus Christ was insane, or He was the son of God



Or the gospels contain falsehoods and he never claimed divinity.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Or the gospels contain falsehoods and he never claimed divinity.



Or he didn't exist at all.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Or he didn't exist at all.





atlashunter said:


> Or the gospels contain falsehoods and he never claimed divinity.



What ever you will accept as truth. One must be prepared to deal with the consequences that come with that. If both of you are willing to deal with those consequences, if those consequences exist of course, then live it up now. Don't waste your time on a computer trying to falsify God, live like there is not tomorrow, or better yet, live like there is no afterlife.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

Just throwing a couple other possibilities out there stringmusic. Both of which are more likely than the one you choose.


----------



## 1handkneehigh (Jan 12, 2011)

I wasn't born a christian nor was I raised one.  But I have been invited to the churches and attended many times.  They all have one common tactic is to scare their followers with blasphemy, do this or you will go to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, or god will punish you.  Other than that churches wasn't bad I felt like I was part of the family.  Then I realised why they are so infactuated with getting more members, after I noticed the pastor was driving a very nice Mercede.  I have no problem with what religion people choose to believe but it's bothered me when their religion infringe on my rights.  I like to drink wine every now and then but why would the state disallowed the sale of alcohol on sunday.  You christian out there, if you don't want to enjoy wine or your choice of juices don't stop others from enjoying them.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 12, 2011)

1handkneehigh said:


> I wasn't born a christian nor was I raised one.  But I have been invited to the churches and attended many times.  They all have one common tactic is to scare their followers with blasphemy, do this or you will go to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, or god will punish you.


All churchs' do not have the He11 and brimstone in common, keep looking there are plenty out there that teach.





> Then I realised why they are so infactuated with getting more members, after I noticed the pastor was driving a very nice Mercede.


Yes some church pastors use God and teaching of the Bible completely for financial gain, but again, not all are the same, I hope you keep searching for one that brings truth into the light for you.





> I have no problem with what religion people choose to believe but it's bothered me when their religion infringe on my rights.  I like to drink wine every now and then but why would the state disallowed the sale of alcohol on sunday.  You christian out there, if you don't want to enjoy wine or your choice of juices don't stop others from enjoying them.


Dont bag all Christians up together, you would not like the same done to you. Also, dont count on the government to make correct decisions for you or me, they wont most of the time. Go to the store this Saturday night and enjoy you a glass of wine this Sunday!


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 12, 2011)

I hear cults make you feel like you're part of a family too.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 12, 2011)

Are you admitting that Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- might not exist as what's considered mainstream? I'm proud of you, string!


----------



## 1handkneehigh (Jan 12, 2011)

If a god is omnipotent, omniscience, one and only god, then why in the world would he need a son to do his work?  If he can have a son therefore he can have more sons.  To have a son is to be human.  Just my humble opinion.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 12, 2011)

1handkneehigh said:


> If a god is omnipotent, omniscience, one and only god, then why in the world would he need a son to do his work? If he can have a son therefore he can have more sons. To have a son is to be human. Just my humble opinion.


 
Your excellent questions need to be started in another thread. When I have time, I'll give them a try.


----------



## 1mamabearNC (Feb 19, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I think you missed my point.
> 
> If the atheist has no belief in the specifics of any religious tenets, disavows the reality of a spiritual realm of any kind, is utterly convinced that there is nothing supernatural, then what is there to explore or discuss? The atheist is completely disarmed because he cannot prove a negative. He can only speak against the rationality of the deist's position, yet many who appear to be completely rational also believe in a god. They simply cannot reconcile this apparent contradiction. This is where there is an impasse. Either the deists "gets" something that the atheist does not "get" or the deist fails to "get" something that the atheist "gets".
> 
> ...



Well, that was quite a mouthful! I don't know quite which category I fall into, but maybe a little of all three A's. I do believe in the spiritual, but I do not believe that the bible is written by god. It was written by a bunch of guys a really long time ago.They wanted people to behave a certain way, so they made up a bunch of stories about what would happen to those people if they didn't follow the rules.  I am more inclined to believe in more than one deity, Goddess and God, instead of the male god that the males who wrote the bible wanted us to believe in. Why would god necessarily be male? Why not asexual? Why not a being of pure spirit, neither female nor male? I would just as soon believe in Avatar as believe that "god" will condemn me to purgatory or a hotter place if I do not cow tow to "the man behind the pulpit".


----------



## 1john4:4 (Feb 19, 2011)

1mamabearNC said:


> Well, that was quite a mouthful! I don't know quite which category I fall into, but maybe a little of all three A's. I do believe in the spiritual, but I do not believe that the bible is written by god. It was written by a bunch of guys a really long time ago.They wanted people to behave a certain way, so they made up a bunch of stories about what would happen to those people if they didn't follow the rules.  I am more inclined to believe in more than one deity, Goddess and God, instead of the male god that the males who wrote the bible wanted us to believe in. Why would god necessarily be male? Why not asexual? Why not a being of pure spirit, neither female nor male? I would just as soon believe in Avatar as believe that "god" will condemn me to purgatory or a hotter place if I do not cow tow to "the man behind the pulpit".




Im afraid that so many including you have the wrong impression of God. God is not an angry ruler! The bible is God's love letter to you and me. Stop looking at the man behind the pulpit for a second and look what God did. For example look at Romans 5:8 "but God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were STILL SINNERS, Christ DIED for us." I don't know if you have a child or not, but I believe in another of your post you mentioned why did God need to have a son. If you do have a child; look into their eyes and then imagine how much love it would take for someone else for you to send that child to die in their place. Im afraid you are looking at the wrong place and placing your faith in something "the man behind the pulpit" and you are letting his actions instead of God's actions lead you. Colossians 2:13-14 is another good read. Maybe you can read it and ponder over it a while. Hope God will show you who He really is.


----------



## woodchuck23 (Feb 20, 2011)

1john4:4 said:


> Im afraid that so many including you have the wrong impression of God. God is not an angry ruler! The bible is God's love letter to you and me. Stop looking at the man behind the pulpit for a second and look what God did. For example look at Romans 5:8 "but God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were STILL SINNERS, Christ DIED for us." I don't know if you have a child or not, but I believe in another of your post you mentioned why did God need to have a son. If you do have a child; look into their eyes and then imagine how much love it would take for someone else for you to send that child to die in their place. Im afraid you are looking at the wrong place and placing your faith in something "the man behind the pulpit" and you are letting his actions instead of God's actions lead you. Colossians 2:13-14 is another good read. Maybe you can read it and ponder over it a while. Hope God will show you who He really is.



The man behind the pulpit is exactly the one in question here. What mamabear said is that she(assuming?) is spiritual but that RELIGION is created by man. Christianity was created by man. Man are the one who created those love letters and jotted them down, and man are the ones that preach them to you every sunday. Personally I have a very close relationship with my spirituality but the humans behind religion have left nothing but a sour taste in my mouth. The Bible was written by matthew, john, luke, etc, and there are even psalms and writings that the ruling authority threw out because it did not mesh with the way that they wanted their soceity to be governed and the bible was just that- a way to cow the masses and help rule their society. 

Again, I am a very spiritual person and believe in the ebb and flow of energy and the power of positivity and believe that some of the biblical teachings have good intentions- love thy neighbor, don't kill thy neighbor, etc. but they are just that- fables like hansel and gretel to keep naughty kids (of all ages) on the right path. Not a bad thing, but please don't tell me that a Zombie Carpenter version of Santa Claus is watching my every move and the man in the funny robes is his officer policing my actions. 

People should be good people without worrying about an angry centaur in a fiery cave!


----------



## 1mamabearNC (Feb 20, 2011)

I started reading the bible years ago, and could not believe that this propaganda has been influencing so many people for so long. Why would I read any of it again when I do not believe this is a message from god? It is a message, as I have said before, from a bunch of guys who got together to make up rules for others, and wanted to scare them into following those rules. 

And I wasn't the one who asked why god needed a son...I believe that Jesus was a charismatic speaker who was a politician, was very civic-minded, and who had a message that people wanted to hear. But he was just a man, who was very famous for the political changes that he inspired. Others took his image and made him into the "son of god" and created the religion Christianity.


----------



## 1handkneehigh (Feb 20, 2011)

1john4:4 said:


> "but God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were STILL SINNERS, Christ DIED for us."
> 
> I don't think christ DIED for us.  I think the reason he died because he was rebelling against the roman empire.  He got caught and they crucified him for it so that it will be a lesson to others not to challenged the government.
> 
> You also mentioned god sent his only son to die for us because we sinned.  Again like my earlier post, why would a entity who is omniscience, omnipotent, someone who can do anything that he/she wishes would have a son or need a son to die for us?  If he god exists he could have sent his dog to do the work and not sacrificed his ONE AND ONLY SON.  Someone who was not indoctrinated like me would have a hard time understand the concept of god and claims of jesus to be god.  To me the bible is a history book of the Jewish  people.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 20, 2011)

1handkneehigh said:


> 1john4:4 said:
> 
> 
> > "but God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were STILL SINNERS, Christ DIED for us."
> ...


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 20, 2011)

1mamabearNC said:


> I started reading the bible years ago, and could not believe that this propaganda has been influencing so many people for so long. Why would I read any of it again when I do not believe this is a message from god? It is a message, as I have said before, from a bunch of guys who got together to make up rules for others, and wanted to scare them into following those rules.
> 
> And I wasn't the one who asked why god needed a son...I believe that Jesus was a charismatic speaker who was a politician, was very civic-minded, and who had a message that people wanted to hear. But he was just a man, who was very famous for the political changes that he inspired. Others took his image and made him into the "son of god" and created the religion Christianity.



Getting crucified is not a real good political strategy. Maybe you should read it again.


----------



## 1mamabearNC (Mar 16, 2011)

You are very correct...I am sure it wasn't his idea to get crucified, but he probably was a very self-less person,who hoped his sacrifice would inspire his people to rise above their situation. I am sure he was a very great person, but again, just a person. Not a deity, and not the son of a deity.


----------



## CAL (Mar 16, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Is this a place to discuss religious and spiritual issues as they relate to atheists and agnostics or is this a place to corral the non-believers so that they can be proslelytized to all at once?
> 
> If a Muslim came on here and started telling Christians that they were going to Muslim He11 and that they were abominations to the Muslim God,  would they garner infractions?   I think they would.
> 
> I think they made this section to keep people who don't believe in the Christian God out of the Spiritual Discussions and Study section,  where they don't really discuss or study spirituality, only Christianity.  They created and named this sub-section Atheists, Agnostics and Apologetics but they never really want to discuss any issues as they relate to the sub-section.  It's just another place to proselytize.   How can one engage only those people that are interested in true discussion and ignore those that are only interested in vomiting scripture when this is clearly the place where such behavior should be criticized?



Now,just how in the world did an old sinner saved by grace miss this forum?Don't have time now to read them all but hey,stay tuned.I will be back tonight!
Man,I just love to talk about our Lord and what He has done in my life.No need in going over to the Christianity forum.All those folks already know about the Lord and what to expect if we just trust what Jesus taught and have the Faith of a mustard seed.
See ya tonight ole sinners like me!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2011)

1mamabearNC said:


> You are very correct...I am sure it wasn't his idea to get crucified, but he probably was a very self-less person,who *hoped his sacrifice would inspire his people to rise above their situation*. I am sure he was a very great person, but again, just a person. Not a deity, and not the son of a deity.



Not everyone of His "people" were in bad situations. Example, Paul.


----------



## CAL (Mar 16, 2011)

Hey people whether you believe or not but just in case you might happen to believe before ya croke.Please stay away from participating in Blasphemy post.Blasphemy against God is the only unforgivable sin.You will wind up being worm bait in the hot house!


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2011)

CAL said:


> Hey people whether you believe or not but just in case you might happen to believe before ya croke.Please stay away from participating in Blasphemy post.Blasphemy against God is the only unforgivable sin.You will wind up being worm bait in the hot house!



Mind forged manacles Cal.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2011)

CAL said:


> Hey people whether you believe or not but just in case you might happen to believe before ya croke.Please stay away from participating in Blasphemy post.Blasphemy against God is the only unforgivable sin.You will wind up being worm bait in the hot house!



"Blasphemy" is subjective, and is sometimes used as a reason to delete posts.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2011)

Is it really blasphemy for the people who do not believe in a god?


----------



## JFS (Mar 16, 2011)

I can't use this enough around here:


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Is it really blasphemy for the people who do not believe in a god?



Well, there you have it.  This is not really the Atheist, Agnostics, and Apologetics sub-section then.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2011)




----------



## CAL (Mar 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Mind forged manacles Cal.



Hey errrrrrrrrrrrr atlas,that's er negative there s i r.....!It's written in therrr "good Book".


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 16, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> He was an Egyptian god, and in NO WAY is similar to Jesus Christ.



So all the things I wrote about are not similar to Jesus Christ?


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 16, 2011)

BRANCHWYNN said:


> Horas died too....just like Budah. Jesus died and on the third day he arose. He lives, that's the difference. In spite of whether the man behind the pulpit has a little or a lot of sin in his life, he is a man and vessel used by God Almighty.



My point is, would if its a stolen story?


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 16, 2011)

CAL said:


> Hey people whether you believe or not but just in case you might happen to believe before ya croke.Please stay away from participating in Blasphemy post.Blasphemy against God is the only unforgivable sin.You will wind up being worm bait in the hot house!



Blasphemy?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2011)

CAL said:


> Hey errrrrrrrrrrrr atlas,that's er negative there s i r.....!It's written in therrr "good Book".



Not such a good book that says people will burn forever because they don't believe the right thing. Besides, you know you can't believe everything you read.

Do you really think me and my pals here deserve to burn forever?


----------



## JFS (Mar 16, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> My point is, would if its a stolen story?



Let's just say not that original:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity#cite_note-4


----------



## CAL (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Do you really think me and my pals here deserve to burn forever?



Please believe me when I post this next statement.I have never been more serious in my 67 years of life.

If I thought you and or your pals deserve to burn forever,I promise i would never waste my time here trying to convince anyone here otherwise.This is a promise I make to all that don't believe.

I really don't think all here that are suppose to be real atheist are 100%.I think some might be but many here wish to believe but struggle with some of the Biblical passages.They struggle with the meanings,I struggle also with some passages but still believe.I can't believe there is a Bible scholar anywhere that knows all about the Bible.Just my opinion!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 17, 2011)

CAL said:


> Please believe me when I post this next statement.I have never been more serious in my 67 years of life.
> 
> If I thought you and or your pals deserve to burn forever,I promise i would never waste my time here trying to convince anyone here otherwise.This is a promise I make to all that don't believe.
> 
> I really don't think all here that are suppose to be real atheist are 100%.I think some might be but many here wish to believe but struggle with some of the Biblical passages.They struggle with the meanings,I struggle also with some passages but still believe.I can't believe there is a Bible scholar anywhere that knows all about the Bible.Just my opinion!



I can't believe in something that doesn't make sense and I can't understand how you do.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2011)

If you don't think we deserve to burn but you think we will burn how do you reconcile that with the idea of a just God?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

> If you don't think we deserve to burn but you think we will burn how do you reconcile that with the idea of a just God?



Atlas, it is the side benefits of belonging to the "Club". While in the club you can act morally irresponsible and conduct yourself on a daily basis in ways that are not worthy of anyone's respect, yet as long as you believe, your saved from the fire.

On the other hand, another person that is not in the club(but knows about it) can lead a good, respectful, honest, caring life, yet despite being an example for most "club members", they are gonna burn.

Oddly, someone that just goes about their daily thing but has never heard of God( innocents), are gonna make it in the pearly gates because they didn't know any better.

As a christian (and their duty to spread the word) they are ****ing everyone they tell that doesn't follow because now they have taken innocent people who were just happy doing their thing and were guaranteed a spot in heaven and have now forced them to choose to do something that they had no intention of doing. Spreading doesn't sound all that helpful to me.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Not such a good book that says people will burn forever because they don't believe the right thing. Besides, you know you can't believe everything you read.
> 
> Do you really think me and my pals here deserve to burn forever?[/QUOTE]
> 
> I think everyone deserves to live eternally apart from God. Good thing we dont get what we deserve.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2011)

When I was a child fire and brimstone preaching was pretty common at least in the churches I grew up in. Seems like we hear a lot more now of the characterization of ****ation as "living eternally apart from God". It doesn't sound as nasty as saying my God is going to throw you into a burning pit for eternity if you don't share my beliefs.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> When I was a child fire and brimstone preaching was pretty common at least in the churches I grew up in. Seems like we here a lot more now of the characterization of ****ation as "living eternally apart from God". It doesn't sound as nasty as saying my God is going to throw you* into a burning pit *for eternity if you don't share my beliefs.



I dont know if I believe that. I dont think it will be the physical pain of he11 that will be the main problem, I think its worse than that.

.. and its not about me getting the one up on you for sharing my beliefs, dont look at it that way.


----------



## CAL (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If you don't think we deserve to burn but you think we will burn how do you reconcile that with the idea of a just God?



I don't think you deserve to burn because I believe you are a good person.I think all people are good people till they prove otherwise!
God has written rules for life,simple.
If you follow those rules you will live a happy life,simple.
I vision all that do not believe as good people,more than likely practicing all the Bible says we as Christians need to do to inherit eternal life.They just haven't accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior.This is the first requirement!
God is a just God because He will forgive us of any sin except Blasphemy.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2011)

CAL said:


> I don't think you deserve to burn because I believe you are a good person.I think all people are good people till they prove otherwise!
> God has written rules for life,simple.
> If you follow those rules you will live a happy life,simple.
> I vision all that do not believe as good people,more than likely practicing all the Bible says we as Christians need to do to inherit eternal life.They just haven't accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior.This is the first requirement!
> God is a just God because He will forgive us of any sin except Blasphemy.



Well you're better than those here who can bring themselves to say yes unbelievers deserve eternal torment. So you don't think I deserve to be cast into an eternally burning pit but you worship a God who would do exactly that. How can it be that a good, just, and loving deity sends people there that don't deserve it?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well you're better than those here who can bring themselves to say yes unbelievers deserve eternal torment. So you don't think I deserve to be cast into an eternally burning pit but you worship a God who would do exactly that. How can it be that a good, just, and loving deity sends people there that don't deserve it?



ALL of us DESERVE to be eternally separated from God (torment). I worship the ONLY God, who offers Salvation from that fate through the sacrifice and resurrection of His Son. It is not about hate, it is about love. It is about Amazing Grace. HOW SWEET THE SOUND!!!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 18, 2011)

Like William Munny said to Little Bill in Unforgiven......"Deserve's got 'nuthin to do with it".


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 18, 2011)

Do all of us deserve to burn for eternity Ted?


----------



## CAL (Mar 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well you're better than those here who can bring themselves to say yes unbelievers deserve eternal torment. So you don't think I deserve to be cast into an eternally burning pit but you worship a God who would do exactly that. How can it be that a good, just, and loving deity sends people there that don't deserve it?



Atlas,I am no better than the next except I believe that God will forgive me of my down falls.Most likely if we compared down falls,I would be way ahead of everyone in this particular forum.I have more than most and know it.

It is my belief that there is a God and He is a forgiving God.If I don't make the grade and wind up in torment,then it will be because I don't deserve to be in Heaven.It will be my own fault,it will not be my Lords fault by any means.

It is my belief that if I live a life as pointed out in the Bible to go to Heaven,everything else will fall into place.I will not do the things that will keep me from Heaven.Seems simple to me.The thought of God keeping me out of Heaven never crossed my mind because I have forgiveness for my sins.May I say also since I have tried to get my act where it is suppose to be.......It just don't get no better than this.My life is less stressful and I get along with my family many,many,many times better than before.I get along better with everyone for that matter.I wish I could describe the feelings I have inside me living this way.

Atlas,I challenge you to try what I am talking about and see for yourself.It just don't get any better than this.If you just try it,you will see!You can always return to where you are now,but you never will once you see.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 18, 2011)

CAL said:


> Atlas,I challenge you to try what I am talking about and see for yourself.It just don't get any better than this.If you just try it,you will see!You can always return to where you are now,but you never will once you see.



You may not believe it but I've been there and done it. I was raised in it. Can't say it had the same effect on me as it apparently has for you. I'm glad it's what makes you happy. That has to count for something. But for me what feels good is nothing in comparison to what is true and I see no reason to believe christianity is true and plenty to believe it is false.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Do all of us deserve to burn for eternity Ted?



And worse.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 19, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> And worse.



Why?


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Why?



Im curious to know why as well.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Why?







vowell462 said:


> Im curious to know why as well.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Do all of us deserve to burn for eternity Ted?


No, no one deserves that for eternity. How offensive can you get.


----------



## CAL (Mar 21, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> And worse.



If we don't love our neighbor as our self,according to God's word,then how can we expect to reach eternity in Heaven?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2011)

CAL said:


> If we don't love our neighbor as our self,according to God's word,then how can we expect to reach eternity in Heaven?



Seems to me loving your neighbor as yourself is loving your neighbor more than God does. Except for those like ted who think we all deserve to burn for eternity.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Seems to me loving your neighbor as yourself is loving your neighbor more than God does. Except for those like ted who think we all deserve to burn for eternity.



It is not my rule Atlas, sin separates us from God. The wages of sin are death. Through the Grace of God and the death and resurrection of Christ, all can be saved. That is mercy, that is grace, that is love.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> It is not my rule Atlas, sin separates us from God. The wages of sin are death. Through the Grace of God and the death and resurrection of Christ, all can be saved. That is mercy, that is grace, that is love.



Yes I know brother Ted. It's not your rules (although you've already agreed with the judgment that people deserve to burn), you're just spreading the message. We get it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yes I know brother Ted. It's not your rules (although you've already agreed with the judgment that people deserve to burn), you're just spreading the message. We get it.



No Atlas, no, you don't. It ain't about the burnin', it is about the savin'. The more you talk, the more I see, you just don't get it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> No Atlas, no, you don't. It ain't about the burnin', it is about the savin'. The more you talk, the more I see, you just don't get it.



"This hurts me more than it hurts you."  

Now that I'm on the other side of that statement I know that it's a lie.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> No Atlas, no, you don't. It ain't about the burnin', it is about the savin'. The more you talk, the more I see, you just don't get it.



Oh I do get it. You've got the question of the morality of burning people for eternity and then you've got the question of morality of providing a scapegoat by way of a human sacrifice. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not blown away by an undeserved punishment that would qualify as pure evil if it were true being "paid for" with a human blood sacrifice. The whole thing is disgusting.

You've already said we all deserve eternal burning and worse. You've been asked why you think this and have yet to answer the question. You'll have a tough time convincing me of that but I'm open to hearing your reasons.

We absolutely do understand your position. You're taking the exact same position as Mr Phelps, but now trying to place all the emphasis on the salvation part of the message whereas WBC emphasizes the burning part. But the two are integral to the message as a whole.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Oh I do get it. You've got the question of the morality of burning people for eternity and then you've got the question of morality of providing a scapegoat by way of a human sacrifice. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not blown away by an undeserved punishment that would qualify as pure evil if it were true being "paid for" with a human blood sacrifice. The whole thing is disgusting.
> 
> You've already said we all deserve eternal burning and worse. You've been asked why you think this and have yet to answer the question. You'll have a tough time convincing me of that but I'm open to hearing your reasons.
> 
> We absolutely do understand your position. You're taking the exact same position as Mr Phelps, but now trying to place all the emphasis on the salvation part of the message whereas WBC emphasizes the burning part. But the two are integral to the message as a whole.



Yup, can't have any saving without the burning part. You get to choose which. It is not up to any one else but you.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2011)

If you're going to say people deserve to burn for eternity and worse don't you think such a strong judgment of people demands good reasons? Why do you think every Joe Schmoe non-believer out there like me deserves to be thrown into a burning pit and left there for all time?

You're a bit annoying but I wouldn't wish such a thing on you no matter what you happened to believe nor would I be in agreement with any entity that would do that to you.



> Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
> 
> ~Thomas Paine


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If you're going to say people deserve to burn for eternity and worse don't you think such a strong judgment of people demands good reasons? Why do you think every Joe Schmoe non-believer out there like me deserves to be thrown into a burning pit and left there for all time?
> 
> You're a bit annoying but I wouldn't wish such a thing on you no matter what you happened to believe nor would I be in agreement with any entity that would do that to you.



I didn't make the rules Atlas, and I do not wish the whole burning thing on anyone either. That is why I am still up responding to your posts.

I think you have studied the Bible quite a bit, so you know why I believe that we all have a sin nature.

I do not believe in a cruel God. That is your perception. I believe in a God of love and grace.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

You still haven't explained why you think we deserve to burn. And if you really believe that, why would you not wish on people what they deserve?


----------



## vowell462 (Apr 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I didn't make the rules Atlas, and I do not wish the whole burning thing on anyone either. That is why I am still up responding to your posts.
> 
> I think you have studied the Bible quite a bit, so you know why I believe that we all have a sin nature.
> 
> I do not believe in a cruel God. That is your perception. I believe in a God of love and grace.



In post number 104 you said that we deserved to burn, and worse. Was that just a joke?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

Any human that behaved as the God of the bible, that followed the same principles of "grace and love" in their own life would be deemed incredibly evil and probably out of their mind. Imagine someone who is transgressed against. Rather than forgiving their transgressor when forgiveness is asked they have a gruesome punishment visited on their child and only through the transgressors acceptance of the "gift" of the abused child can they be forgiven. It's sick. And the fact that the story extends the punishments to eternity for the transgressor and death for the scapegoat makes it all the more sick and twisted. That's not love and anyone who witnessed this sort of thing in real life would not see it as love. Love would be to forgive out of the kindness of your heart, not because someone was brutally murdered in ancient Palestine.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Any human that behaved as the God of the bible, that followed the same principles of "grace and love" in their own life would be deemed incredibly evil and probably out of their mind. Imagine someone who is transgressed against. Rather than forgiving their transgressor when forgiveness is asked they have a gruesome punishment visited on their child and only through the transgressors acceptance of the "gift" of the abused child can they be forgiven. It's sick. And the fact that the story extends the punishments to eternity for the transgressor and death for the scapegoat makes it all the more sick and twisted. That's not love and anyone who witnessed this sort of thing in real life would not see it as love. Love would be to forgive out of the kindness of your heart, not because someone was brutally murdered in ancient Palestine.



Its all in how you choose to read and interpret it Atlas, I see this post with a HUGE twist with an atheistic mindframe. You choose to look at the situation this way and others choose to look at it another way.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Any human that behaved as the God of the bible, that followed the same principles of "grace and love" in their own life would be deemed incredibly evil and probably out of their mind. Imagine someone who is transgressed against. Rather than forgiving their transgressor when forgiveness is asked they have a gruesome punishment visited on their child and only through the transgressors acceptance of the "gift" of the abused child can they be forgiven. It's sick. And the fact that the story extends the punishments to eternity for the transgressor and death for the scapegoat makes it all the more sick and twisted. That's not love and anyone who witnessed this sort of thing in real life would not see it as love. Love would be to forgive out of the kindness of your heart, not because someone was brutally murdered in ancient Palestine.



Sounds like Modern day Pakistan to me..


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Its all in how you choose to read and interpret it Atlas, I see this post with a HUGE twist with an atheistic mindframe. You choose to look at the situation this way and others choose to look at it another way.



The point string is that you would see it exactly this way if a human behaved in this way. Would you not?

This goes back to my thread about the differences in concepts of justice and morality versus what is expressed in the bible. The two don't match up quite as well as you might like to think.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Oh I do get it. You've got the question of the morality of burning people for eternity and then you've got the question of morality of providing a scapegoat by way of a human sacrifice. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not blown away by an undeserved punishment that would qualify as pure evil if it were true being "paid for" with a human blood sacrifice. The whole thing is disgusting.
> 
> You've already said we all deserve eternal burning and worse. You've been asked why you think this and have yet to answer the question. You'll have a tough time convincing me of that but I'm open to hearing your reasons.
> 
> We absolutely do understand your position. You're taking the exact same position as Mr Phelps, but now trying to place all the emphasis on the salvation part of the message whereas WBC emphasizes the burning part. But the two are integral to the message as a whole.



At the heart of the matter is the simple fact that God, if He is the creator and sustainer of all that is ( and I believe that He is), then He has the right and authority to "make the rules". He alone determines what is counter to His character and will. He also determines the nature and length of punishment for violating His "rules". It is all very cut and dry. Anything, thought or action, that is contrary to His will is sin ..... and any such thought or action earns the penalty associated with sin .... death (not physical death, because we all get a taste, but spiritual death). 

Then you ask why we believe that. It is because He has revealed Himself to those who seek Him. We do not think, as a speculative or wishful thought process; we know because we have personally experienced an ongoing relationship with Him.
It should also be noted that we do not have the burden of convincing anyone; just informing them. 

Two final comments:

You are right about the integration of the "bad news", that is the consequence of unrepented sin and the "good news" of the opportunity to completely avoid the well-deserved punishment associated with sin. The message of redemption is not complete with out both. 


Does it ever strike you as rather silly to be refuting the nature and sovereignty of the God (or all gods) that you do not  believe exist? Clearly, you do not understand the God of the Bible, but you continue to present some warped personal view of Him. How irrational is that?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

gtparts said:


> At the heart of the matter is the simple fact that God, if He is the creator and sustainer of all that is ( and I believe that He is), then He has the right and authority to "make the rules". He alone determines what is counter to His character and will. He also determines the nature and length of punishment for violating His "rules". It is all very cut and dry. Anything, thought or action, that is contrary to His will is sin ..... and any such thought or action earns the penalty associated with sin .... death (not physical death, because we all get a taste, but spiritual death).



I understand this. What I'm driving at is do you consider "his rules" and "his punishments" just? And if so for what reason? Is it because you would consider the same behaviors moral and just regardless of who did them? Or is it because he is the all powerful creator? If the former, then like Ted you think we all deserve to burn forever and I would ask, why? Is it something you can justify on moral grounds rather than simply saying "the big man in the sky says so"? If the latter, then is it even possible for your God to commit an immoral or unjust act? Does might make right?





gtparts said:


> You are right about the integration of the "bad news", that is the consequence of unrepented sin and the "good news" of the opportunity to completely avoid the well-deserved punishment associated with sin. The message of redemption is not complete with out both.



I agree. The difference between the Fred Phelps of this world and mainstream christians like you is one of emphasis not principle. Does it not disturb you to think that people will burn forever not because of how they lived but because of what they believed? You really find that idea moral?




gtparts said:


> Does it ever strike you as rather silly to be refuting the nature and sovereignty of the God (or all gods) that you do not  believe exist?



Not at all. Beliefs matter when they inform peoples actions.


----------



## Achilles Return (Apr 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Yup, can't have any saving without the burning part. You get to choose which. It is not up to any one else but you.



Yes, you absolutely can. Your god is omnipotent, right? Then don't have a Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, simply don't give those who didn't get saved an eternity at all. Or put those who committed mass genocide into Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, and let those of us that simply didn't 'believe' into someplace neutral. Any of this could be done, but according to you, hasn't been. That is the opposite of moral, and the opposite of justice.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 4, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Yes, you absolutely can. Your god is omnipotent, right? Then don't have a Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, simply don't give those who didn't get saved an eternity at all. Or put those who committed mass genocide into Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, and let those of us that simply didn't 'believe' into someplace neutral. Any of this could be done, but according to you, hasn't been. That is the opposite of moral, and the opposite of justice.



That is counter to any religious belief system, or logical philosophy, such as yen & yang, even the most basic of cogent philosophers understood the principles of balance in life. There is and always has been good and evil, positive and negative, etc. etc. etc. It seems only a select few insist on there being a gray area Utopian existence somewhere in this vast universe. Being an avid outdoorsman, and observing nature, and the natural progression of all things living has taught me that this is just not so.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That is counter to any religious belief system, or logical philosophy, such as yen & yang, _even the most basic of cogent philosophers understood the principles of balance in life. _



Exactly the point. There is no balance and no proportionality in a system that doles out an eternal punishment for a set of finite acts and the same punishment for the smallest wrong as the greatest.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Exactly the point. There is no balance and no proportionality in a system that doles out an eternal punishment for a set of finite acts and the same punishment for the smallest wrong as the greatest.



Man is the one that insist on setting boundaries and tier levels for violation vs. punishment, as in our penal system. However, one facet you guys are leaving out of this equation for religion, or at least with Christianity, is forgiveness through repentance. That doesn't necessarily exist in other religions, nor does it exist in the human penal system.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Man is the one that insist on setting boundaries and tier levels for violation vs. punishment, as in our penal system.



Right. Do you think we've got it wrong?




Miguel Cervantes said:


> However, one facet you guys are leaving out of this equation for religion, or at least with Christianity, is forgiveness through repentance. That doesn't necessarily exist in other religions, *nor does it exist in the human penal system.*



Repentance and blood sacrifice.

Should it exist in the human penal system? Would that make it more just or less just?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Right. Do you think we've got it wrong?



On crimes against people vs. crimes just because the government says it is a crime, yes, I think it is about as screwed up as a football bat. If you want to sell marijuana then you are breaking the law, if you want to merely smoke it, you still get thrown in with the thieves and murderers.

There are plenty of flaws to be pointed out with any system.





atlashunter said:


> Repentance and blood sacrifice.
> 
> Should it exist in the human penal system? Would that make it more just or less just?



It is taught, if you so desire to attend and listen, within the human penal system, but making it mandatory? No, I feel each man must choose his path in life and pay the consequences for his decisions and actions, whether it be right away or in the end. We can all speculate the outcome of what happens after death, but there is only one true way we will ever find out. If death is Niagra Falls, and going over it is unavoidable, then I choose to do so in a heavily padded vessel designed for such a trip, instead of a rubber raft.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I understand this. What I'm driving at is do you consider "his rules" and "his punishments" just? And if so for what reason? Is it because you would consider the same behaviors moral and just regardless of who did them? Or is it because he is the all powerful creator? If the former, then like Ted you think we all deserve to burn forever and I would ask, why? Is it something you can justify on moral grounds rather than simply saying "the big man in the sky says so"? If the latter, then is it even possible for your God to commit an immoral or unjust act? Does might make right?



 Man's concept of morality tends toward looking for degrees of sin based on the perceived severity of the action. Proportionality follows the same line of human thinking.  That seems to work (sometimes) for crimes identified by societies by legislative action or fiat.... flawed, but probably the most workable solution to the problem of crime. But there is a considerable difference between man's concept of crime and God's concept of sin.

Since all sin is the same, a violation of God's law and an affront to His person and will, then it is only reasonable that the punishment be the same. God is not trying to replicate a system based on human perception. He has originated a system based on His holiness and righteousness. As has been said before, no one can live up to that standard.... small wonder, since God is who He is and we are who we are... mere humans. 

You ask how we can justify this system ( or the God that authored it) on moral grounds. We can not. We simply are not capable of doing so with our imperfect sense of morality. We are a finite, fragile, ignorant, prideful, and self-serving folk. God is the perfect, holy, righteous, omniscient, omnipotent and gracious spiritual being. The "potter" can take a portion of clay, divide it in three pieces, and make a chamber pot, a stein, and a lampstand for a cathedral. Does any creation have the right to question, much less condemn, its creator? Does that really make sense?




atlashunter said:


> I agree. The difference between the Fred Phelps of this world and mainstream christians like you is one of emphasis not principle. Does it not disturb you to think that people will burn forever not because of how they lived but because of what they believed? You really find that idea moral?



 It saddens me that some will be stiff-necked and reject God's offer of redemption. What each believes is an individual choice. Bad choices ultimately yield bad results. Good choices yield good results. Direction determines destination. 

Above, you ask if I really find that idea to be moral. First, I hold it to be a reality, not just a concept or idea. Secondly, because of who God is, it is not within my ability or authority to make any such judgment. To consider that I or anyone could evaluate God is positively ludicrous. It would be like trying to determine the amount of rainfall with a sieve. In order to accurately measure, the device used to measure must be accurate, unbroken, and suitable for the task.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> On crimes against people vs. crimes just because the government says it is a crime, yes, I think it is about as screwed up as a football bat. If you want to sell marijuana then you are breaking the law, if you want to merely smoke it, you still get thrown in with the thieves and murderers.
> 
> There are plenty of flaws to be pointed out with any system.



I agree with you that the punishments don't always fit the crime in our system but it sounds like we are on the same page in principle on proportionality between crimes and punishments. No such principle exists in the Christian concept of sin and eternal torment.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I agree with you that the punishments don't always fit the crime in our system but it sounds like we are on the same page in principle on proportionality between crimes and punishments. No such principle exists in the Christian concept of sin and eternal torment.



Outside of forgiveness through repentance you are correct.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Outside of forgiveness through repentance you are correct.



Throw it in the mix and you still don't have proportionality, just an easy way to avoid the punishment.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 4, 2011)

God frequently deals in absolutes. Sin has no gray areas and righteousness has no gray areas. Proportionality has no place in a system that is rooted in a "go/no go" testing protocol.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The point string is that you would see it exactly this way if a human behaved in this way. Would you not?
> 
> This goes back to my thread about the differences in concepts of justice and morality versus what is expressed in the bible. The two don't match up quite as well as you might like to think.



Atlas, Do you want to spend eternity with the God of the Bible? Just yes or no, no explanation.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Throw it in the mix and you still don't have proportionality, just an easy way to avoid the punishment.



Like I said, padded vessel or rubber raft. Which one do you want to go over the falls in..


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2011)

The problem is it just plain looks silly to be floating around on a lake in a padded vessel when there are no waterfalls around the shoreline JUST because you think there MIGHT be a waterfall.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Atlas, Do you want to spend eternity with the God of the Bible? Just yes or no, no explanation.



For me, Negative.
I'd equate it to you wanting to spend eternity with Ra the Egyptian sun god.....just in case....


----------



## gtparts (Apr 4, 2011)

bullethead said:


> For me, Negative.
> I'd equate it to you wanting to spend eternity with Ra the Egyptian sun god.....just in case....



Bullethead, what's your point?

That there is funny, I don't care who you are.

 I am reasonably certain that neither you, nor stringmusic believe that Ra is anything other that an mythic attempt by ancient Egyptians to explain why things happen and who is responsible. At least when you fellas discuss the God of Christianity, one of you believes that He is real.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Bullethead, what's your point?
> 
> That there is funny, I don't care who you are.
> 
> I am reasonably certain that neither you, nor stringmusic believe that Ra is anything other that an mythic attempt by ancient Egyptians to explain why things happen and who is responsible. At least when you fellas discuss the God of Christianity, one of you believes that He is real.



Yes and one of us believes that both of those gods are a mythic attempt by ancient Egyptians and modern Christians to explain why things happen and who is responsible.
It never ceases to amaze me how people dismiss one god and then use those same reasons they deemed unbelievable to worship another.

WHY ask a non believer if they want to spend an eternity with something that they know the non believer does not believe in?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Man's concept of morality tends toward looking for degrees of sin based on the perceived severity of the action. Proportionality follows the same line of human thinking.  That seems to work (sometimes) for crimes identified by societies by legislative action or fiat.... flawed, but probably the most workable solution to the problem of crime. But there is a considerable difference between man's concept of crime and God's concept of sin.



Agreed. I started a thread about those considerable differences. I wonder if you live your life more in line with the secular conception or the biblical.




gtparts said:


> Since all sin is the same, a violation of God's law and an affront to His person and will, then it is only reasonable that the punishment be the same. God is not trying to replicate a system based on human perception. He has originated a system based on His holiness and righteousness. As has been said before, no one can live up to that standard.... small wonder, since God is who He is and we are who we are... mere humans.



Perhaps we should attempt to live up to the standard he sets and treat all crimes equally and redeem criminals by punishing the innocent. How bout it? 




gtparts said:


> You ask how we can justify this system ( or the God that authored it) on moral grounds. We can not. We simply are not capable of doing so with our imperfect sense of morality.



If you can't make moral judgments of what is in the bible in the negative then you can't do it in the positive for the same reasons.




gtparts said:


> Above, you ask if I really find that idea to be moral. First, I hold it to be a reality, not just a concept or idea. Secondly, because of who God is, it is not within my ability or authority to make any such judgment. To consider that I or anyone could evaluate God is positively ludicrous. It would be like trying to determine the amount of rainfall with a sieve. In order to accurately measure, the device used to measure must be accurate, unbroken, and suitable for the task.



So if God were to command pedophilia you would sit on your hands refusing to make a moral judgment on it? As above, how then can you say anything at all about the morality of what is written in the bible?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I am reasonably certain that neither you, nor stringmusic believe that Ra is anything other that an mythic attempt by ancient Egyptians to explain why things happen and who is responsible. At least when you fellas discuss the God of Christianity, one of you believes that He is real.



True but I think what is important to note is that there was a time when people really did believe in Ra and didn't believe in Jehovah. Your God too will pass into history given enough time.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Like I said, padded vessel or rubber raft. Which one do you want to go over the falls in..



If you held to that consistently you'd find yourself believing quite a bit more than just the dominant religion of your culture.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 4, 2011)

> Originally Posted by gtparts View Post
> Man's concept of morality tends toward looking for degrees of sin based on the perceived severity of the action. Proportionality follows the same line of human thinking. That seems to work (sometimes) for crimes identified by societies by legislative action or fiat.... flawed, but probably the most workable solution to the problem of crime. But there is a considerable difference between man's concept of crime and God's concept of sin.
> 
> Agreed. I started a thread about those considerable differences. I wonder if you live your life more in line with the secular conception or the biblical.


 As a Christ-follower, I place this at the top of any listing on how to live my life. If any other listing doesn't conform to this, it is not on my list.

Matthew 22:36-40 (New Living Translation)

36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”

 37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

For the record, loving a person also means holding them accountable, and if appropriate to the relationship, disciplining them. Parent/child relationship comes to mind. 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by gtparts View Post
> Since all sin is the same, a violation of God's law and an affront to His person and will, then it is only reasonable that the punishment be the same. God is not trying to replicate a system based on human perception. He has originated a system based on His holiness and righteousness. As has been said before, no one can live up to that standard.... small wonder, since God is who He is and we are who we are... mere humans.
> 
> Perhaps we should attempt to live up to the standard he sets and treat all crimes equally and redeem criminals by punishing the innocent. How bout it?



Actually, let's just do this. We can both render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. That way we give each the proper respect and position in our lives.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by gtparts View Post
> You ask how we can justify this system ( or the God that authored it) on moral grounds. We can not. We simply are not capable of doing so with our imperfect sense of morality.
> 
> If you can't make moral judgments of what is in the bible in the negative then you can't do it in the positive for the same reasons.



That's laughable in the extreme. The Word of God is the moral "sword" that will judge all. How can an imperfect person as you or I stand in judgment of God? You must really think highly of yourself.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by gtparts View Post
> Above, you ask if I really find that idea to be moral. First, I hold it to be a reality, not just a concept or idea. Secondly, because of who God is, it is not within my ability or authority to make any such judgment. To consider that I or anyone could evaluate God is positively ludicrous. It would be like trying to determine the amount of rainfall with a sieve. In order to accurately measure, the device used to measure must be accurate, unbroken, and suitable for the task.
> 
> So if God were to command pedophilia you would sit on your hands refusing to make a moral judgment on it? As above, how then can you say anything at all about the morality of what is written in the bible?



God has already spoken on the subject. Such a consideration is worthless speculation. God's character and love towards us is immutable.  Look again at the words of Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-40, posted above. Using a child for sexual relations is not love, whether for personal pleasure or as a supposed act of "obedience that honors God". Do you really think in such Satanic terms? Were "God" to do as you suggest, it would be a clear sign that it really wasn't from God. Since your question above is rooted on baseless speculation on your part, I really don't feel obligated to answer.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You still haven't explained why you think we deserve to burn. And if you really believe that, why would you not wish on people what they deserve?



And I won't, smells like a Hambush.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> In post number 104 you said that we deserved to burn, and worse. Was that just a joke?



It is not a joke. "Burn" is a word describing something I have no idea about. I don't know what he!! will be like. The real torture will to be seperated from God. Folks wouldn't have their physical bodies, so "burn" is a best guess based on some descriptions given.

Sin seperates us from God, we inherit a sin nature from Adam and Eve, so it is kind of automatic. Even Mother Thersea needed salvation to get to heaven.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The point string is that you would see it exactly this way if a human behaved in this way. Would you not?
> 
> This goes back to my thread about the differences in concepts of justice and morality versus what is expressed in the bible. The two don't match up quite as well as you might like to think.



In regards to that thread, I said that God's way was unatainable by humans. I don't think they match up at all.

Kinda like, turkeys fly, but eagles really fly!!! Pigs don't.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Yes, you absolutely can. Your god is omnipotent, right? Then don't have a Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, simply don't give those who didn't get saved an eternity at all. Or put those who committed mass genocide into Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, and let those of us that simply didn't 'believe' into someplace neutral. Any of this could be done, but according to you, hasn't been. That is the opposite of moral, and the opposite of justice.



Sounds easy, but makes no sense. Try again later please.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Exactly the point. There is no balance and no proportionality in a system that doles out an eternal punishment for a set of finite acts and the same punishment for the smallest wrong as the greatest.



Let's complicate it even further. You could lead a perfect sin free life, and guess what?

Yup, burnin'.

Without salavtion, the sin nature dooms us all no matter how good we are livin'.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Throw it in the mix and you still don't have proportionality, just an easy way to avoid the punishment.



What makes you say it is easy?


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Apr 4, 2011)

i think this subforum is here just to corral all the ahtiests and other non belivers into one forum so believers can come here and try to convert us.  Little do believers know...I will argue with a brick wall and not give up till it does.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2011)

And I bet you'd convince it that it was no longer brick!


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

gtparts said:


> As a Christ-follower, I place this at the top of any listing on how to live my life. If any other listing doesn't conform to this, it is not on my list.
> 
> For the record, loving a person also means holding them accountable, and if appropriate to the relationship, disciplining them. Parent/child relationship comes to mind.



Do you have kids? Always give out the same punishment no matter what bad thing they did? Ever take a pound of flesh out of one for what the other did? Don't think you're thinking the question through very much. I'm sure you have a sense of proportionality in your dealings with others. And I'm doubting that given the choice to do it without repurcussions, you would throw most of humanity into an eternal fire like your God would. You love your neighbor more than he does. Congrats! 




gtparts said:


> Actually, let's just do this. We can both render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. That way we give each the proper respect and position in our lives.



Nice dodge. Let's try it again. Wouldn't it be more just for us lowly humans to adopt some of the biblical concepts of justice like a single punishment that fits all crimes and vicarious redemption?





gtparts said:


> That's laughable in the extreme. *The Word of God is the moral "sword" that will judge all.* How can an imperfect person as you or I stand in judgment of God? You must really think highly of yourself.
> 
> 
> God has already spoken on the subject. Such a consideration is worthless speculation. God's character and love towards us is immutable.  Look again at the words of Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-40, posted above. Using a child for sexual relations is not love, whether for personal pleasure or as a supposed act of "obedience that honors God". Do you really think in such Satanic terms? Were "God" to do as you suggest, it would be a clear sign that it really wasn't from God. Since your question above is rooted on baseless speculation on your part, I really don't feel obligated to answer.



First you said we couldn't make moral judgments concerning God because of who he is. But now it looks like you are doing just that. Yes pedophilia is evil. So are many other things that God has commanded. If you are fit to make a moral judgment on the one, you've got no grounds to say I can't do the same on the other.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Let's complicate it even further. You could lead a perfect sin free life, and guess what?
> 
> Yup, burnin'.



Why would they burn if they had committed no sin?


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Why would they burn if they had committed no sin?



We all have a sin nature due to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Innocence lost, seperated from God by the mere knowledge of sin, destined to spend eternity NOT in His presence (burning), and God stepped in mercifully and with love to offer us a second chance. (this should all be review for you Atlas, many times you have said here that you have studied this book) 

Strangely it was choice that got us into this mess, and choice which gets us out.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> For me, Negative.
> I'd equate it to you wanting to spend eternity with Ra the Egyptian sun god.....just in case....



Ok then, you dont want to spend eternity with God and therefore you wont, simple as that. As a matter of fact, you wont spend eternity with Ra either.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 5, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> We all have a sin nature due to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Innocence lost, seperated from God by the mere knowledge of sin, destined to spend eternity NOT in His presence (burning), and God stepped in mercifully and with love to offer us a second chance. (this should all be review for you Atlas, many times you have said here that you have studied this book)
> 
> Strangely it was choice that got us into this mess, and choice which gets us out.



Yet another absurd foundational premise of the bible, the primitive idea of corrupted blood and punishing future generations for the misdeeds of their ancestors. If your position is true that means infants and children also get to burn not for anything they did but because two people thousands of years ago ate fruit off a forbidden tree. It boggles my mind that anyone could really believe something so ridiculous.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Apr 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And I bet you'd convince it that it was no longer brick!



Nope i would not.  I would not expect you could convince me to believe in a book either.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Ok then, you dont want to spend eternity with God and therefore you wont, simple as that. As a matter of fact, you wont spend eternity with Ra either.



Right! Nor will it be with any god, devil or made up entity.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> We all have a sin nature due to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Innocence lost, seperated from God by the mere knowledge of sin, destined to spend eternity NOT in His presence (burning), and God stepped in mercifully and with love to offer us a second chance. (this should all be review for you Atlas, many times you have said here that you have studied this book)
> 
> Strangely it was choice that got us into this mess, and choice which gets us out.



CHOICE!!! ??? They had no choice. God knew what they would do....it was a set up. 

The story has too many holes in it as does the rest of the book.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> Nope i would not.  I would not expect you could convince me to believe in a book either.



Heyyyyy, I'm on your side......


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> CHOICE!!! ??? They had no choice. God knew what they would do....it was a set up.


Right, God knew what choices we would make, and still gives us grace and forgivness. Doesnt get any better than that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

Aww, that is beautiful. Thank HIM all the bases are covered.

Think about it, he "creates" a man and a woman. Tells them not to eat the fruit from the tree of Knowledge( full well knowing that they WILL eat from that tree) then he punishes them for doing something he KNEW they would do right from the start. Every person after them carries their sin.

Total crapola!


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 5, 2011)

One more point about Ted's claim. If true that we are condemned by a sinful nature inherited from Adam and Even then as a descendant of Adam and Eve, Jesus is also condemned. There goes the perfect sacrifice. You fellas might want to get back to the drawing board and get your story straight first.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> One more point about Ted's claim. If true that we are condemned by a sinful nature inherited from Adam and Even then as a descendant of Adam and Eve, Jesus is also condemned. There goes the perfect sacrifice. You fellas might want to get back to the drawing board and get your story straight first.



And how would Jesus be condemned?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And how would Jesus be condemned?



By the sinful nature he was born with as a descendant of Adam and Eve.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> By the sinful nature he was born with as a descendant of Adam and Eve.



Jesus stands apart from having the sinful nature like the rest of us, or at least the abilility to not sin. He was not exactly a "descendant" of Adam and Eve, having the whole miracle birth from a virgin and being divine and all.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

Yeah, God TOTALLY could have forgiven mans sins without sending his kid to be killed in exchange but it would just be another man claiming to be the son of a god story without it. God must have wanted another religion too. Sent his kid down for a spin-off sitcom.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Jesus stands apart from having the sinful nature like the rest of us, or at least the abilility to not sin. He was not exactly a "descendant" of Adam and Eve, having the whole miracle birth from a virgin and being divine and all.



Very believable.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Jesus stands apart from having the sinful nature like the rest of us, or at least the abilility to not sin. He was not exactly a "descendant" of Adam and Eve, having the whole miracle birth from a virgin and being divine and all.



If he wasn't descended from Adam and Eve then he wasn't human. Besides, Luke explicitly traces his genealogy to Adam. According to what Ted is saying, it wouldn't matter if he went through life never sinning or not.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

See, there is not enough room in heaven for everyone. God under built and zoning won't give him a permit to expand. He figured it all out though. He crated everyone and devised a master plan for each individual. Some of us never had a chance to make it into the pearly gates. He KNOWS how we think, obviously, and he planned that we think that way from the start. He calls it free will but it is not free will if it was set in stone from the start but whatever....either way he knows just how many he can fit in and the rest he already knows will not make it so we stick to the script.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If he wasn't descended from Adam and Eve then he wasn't human. Besides, Luke explicitly traces his genealogy to Adam. According to what Ted is saying, it wouldn't matter if he went through life never sinning or not.



Luke! Atlas, you know better than to use the Bible to show what they are saying is wrong. The Bible(and select parts) is to only be used to back up what they say, NOT contradict it!!!!


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Apr 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Heyyyyy, I'm on your side......



Sorry...misfire!!


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, God TOTALLY could have forgiven mans sins without sending his kid to be killed in exchange ...




You're leaving out a lot.  Here's a more complete explanation.  The following comes from an Orthodox website.  I could not improve on it, so I just did a C&P:


_There is no question Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. Now the point and the question is this: Why? And under what instrumentality? The question is, did the Father kill him? Did the Father require his death? Or did our Lord willingly descend into the depths of death, himself, on a mission from the Father? This is hugely important... Sin has killed the human race. It is the love of the Father who sent his son on a mission to bring his lost children home. And where did Jesus have to go to find us? Into the depths of death...

... He went where we are, in the overwhelming dead, killing, depth of sin—down into the muck at the bottom of the sea—and embraced us and said, “I’ve come. I’ve trampled down death by dying. And for you who are in tombs, you come with me, because I’m bestowing life.” That’s the Gospel, and that’s Orthodoxy, and that is the love of God in every last moment because the Father sent him there for us._


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

I doubt God had to send anybody to do something he could have done himself. Except for a new religion, there was no need to send  anybody to do anything. If you can create everything in 7 days including Sin, you can wipe it out with a snap of the fingers too. 
Why go into intricate story-lines to do what can be done by Gods sheer will alone, except to gain followers?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 5, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> ... He went where we are, in the overwhelming dead, killing, depth of sin—down into the muck at the bottom of the sea—and embraced us and said, “I’ve come. I’ve trampled down death by dying. And for you who are in tombs, you come with me, because I’m bestowing life.” That’s the Gospel, and that’s Orthodoxy, and that is the love of God in every last moment because the Father sent him there for us.[/I]



That's the orthodox view but it doesn't answer the question of why.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That's the orthodox view but it doesn't answer the question of why.



"I don't know" answers the question of "why".  You may not find that a satisfying answer, but it is an answer.  For some questions, that's all you can honestly say.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 5, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> "I don't know" answers the question of "why".  You may not find that a satisfying answer, but it is an answer.  For some questions, that's all you can honestly say.



I have a lot of respect for that answer. It's honest. Now combine the question with the fact that blood sacrifice and scapegoating was not exclusive to the jewish God, in fact was very common in other cultures and religions around the world coupled with the question "is this a moral practice?".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You're leaving out a lot.  Here's a more complete explanation.  The following comes from an Orthodox website.  I could not improve on it, so I just did a C&P:
> 
> 
> _There is no question Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. Now the point and the question is this: Why? And under what instrumentality? The question is, did the Father kill him? Did the Father require his death? Or did our Lord willingly descend into the depths of death, himself, on a mission from the Father? This is hugely important... Sin has killed the human race. It is the love of the Father who sent his son on a mission to bring his lost children home. And where did Jesus have to go to find us? Into the depths of death...
> ...



What it should say is that from the beginning we were designed to fail. For every breathing minute we are alive we are supposed to believe in an entity that created us solely so that it would have something to worship it. Almost as if it created us so that it has it's own following and if you don't follow then you get sent to a place of horror. It created two people that were not supposed to sin, yet it knew they would sin. Every person since is held accountable for an act that the creator created knowing the outcome before it created it. By design we are expected to not do as designed but are held accountable for not doing it.

I am sorry but there is no intelligence to this design.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yet another absurd foundational premise of the bible, the primitive idea of corrupted blood and punishing future generations for the misdeeds of their ancestors. If your position is true that means infants and children also get to burn not for anything they did but because two people thousands of years ago ate fruit off a forbidden tree. It boggles my mind that anyone could really believe something so ridiculous.



Yep, another Hambush (named for six million dollar ham). That is twice, I won't fall for it again.

All so you can mock me and my beliefs. The intelligent discussion horse is DEAD. I have no doubt you will continue to beat it. I guess it makes you feel OK, or smart or something. Oh, Well.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 7, 2011)

You made the claim ted, I'm just pointing out the implications of that claim.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Do you have kids? Always give out the same punishment no matter what bad thing they did? Ever take a pound of flesh out of one for what the other did? Don't think you're thinking the question through very much. I'm sure you have a sense of proportionality in your dealings with others. And I'm doubting that given the choice to do it without repurcussions, you would throw most of humanity into an eternal fire like your God would. You love your neighbor more than he does. Congrats!



I do. My children were all different in most every way, so, no, punishment often was dependent on a number of things. Don't know that I ever punished the wrong child for the actions of the other, but I could have done so unknowingly. Your suggestion that God and I are somehow roughly equivalent as parental figures is laughable. Such analogy is hugely flawed, absolutely bogus and worthless in the context you put forth. There is no reasonable equivalency. You are still trying to say that crimes and sin are the same.



atlashunter said:


> Nice dodge. Let's try it again. Wouldn't it be more just for us lowly humans to adopt some of the biblical concepts of justice like a single punishment that fits all crimes and vicarious redemption?



Just my personal point of view, but there are  real problems with making application of spiritual justice to the physical world. Are we able to include a perfect, omniscient, human judge (or judges) into our judicial system? Would we ever get 100% of the population to voluntarily submit to that system? Can we somehow devise a system that catches and punishes 100% of the crimes committed?  The simple truth is that imperfect man lacks the ability to implement a perfect legal system.



atlashunter said:


> First you said we couldn't make moral judgments concerning God because of who he is. But now it looks like you are doing just that. Yes pedophilia is evil. So are many other things that God has commanded. If you are fit to make a moral judgment on the one, you've got no grounds to say I can't do the same on the other.



If the character, the essence of God is not perfect, holy, just, merciful, gracious, consistent, and loving, then He is not God. To be any less than that is a pretender and colossal FAIL. Since God is all that, how could we not accept all that He is without question? Like I said in the preceding post, it is like using a sieve as a rain gauge. You can't evaluate (render judgment) on perfection if the methodology or the one doing the testing is imperfect.

That any of God's commands are evil is not a matter of fact, but a matter of your perception. The fact that you do not accept the truth of God's righteous judgment in all matters shows that you do not understand the nature of God or the nature of sin.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 7, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Your suggestion that God and I are somehow roughly equivalent as parental figures is laughable. Such analogy is hugely flawed, absolutely bogus and worthless in the context you put forth. There is no reasonable equivalency. You are still trying to say that crimes and sin are the same.



Isn't sin the breaking of laws given in the bible? And doesn't the bible itself make the analogy of God to a parental figure? Not sure what your objection is here.




gtparts said:


> Just my personal point of view, but there are  real problems with making application of spiritual justice to the physical world. Are we able to include a perfect, omniscient, human judge (or judges) into our judicial system? Would we ever get 100% of the population to voluntarily submit to that system? Can we somehow devise a system that catches and punishes 100% of the crimes committed?  The simple truth is that imperfect man lacks the ability to implement a perfect legal system.



In your own life you live according to very different concepts of justice, not because your execution of those concepts is imperfect, that would hold true in any case, but because your idea of what constitutes justice differs from the God of the bible.




gtparts said:


> If the character, the essence of God is not perfect, holy, just, merciful, gracious, consistent, and loving, then He is not God. To be any less than that is a pretender and colossal FAIL. Since God is all that, how could we not accept all that He is without question? Like I said in the preceding post, it is like using a sieve as a rain gauge. You can't evaluate (render judgment) on perfection if the methodology or the one doing the testing is imperfect.
> 
> That any of God's commands are evil is not a matter of fact, but a matter of your perception. The fact that you do not accept the truth of God's righteous judgment in all matters shows that you do not understand the nature of God or the nature of sin.



How did you as an imperfect human reach the conclusion that the God of the bible is perfect? Can't have it both ways my friend.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You made the claim ted, I'm just pointing out the implications of that claim.



No, you ridiculed me for believing that claim. You do this often.

I think we both agree that we will never convince each other of our views, and it always ends up as you ridiculing a believer. This is boring.

Your guise of "intelligent discussion" is also boring.

There is something you are trying to convince yourself of. I do not know what it is, and I do not know why you struggle in this forum to do it.

Your vexation is not boring, in a totally morbid way, I am inquisitive about it.

I absolutely understand that you will not believe anything I say about the bible or religion is true, yet I persist.

Maybe it is because others will read this and draw their own conclusions.

Maybe I am called to assist you in fulfilling the prophecy that believers will be ridiculed.

Maybe logic misses the mark of the mysterious life and death we lead, and I am meant to point that out.

Maybe I am wrong, and we cease to exist when we expire.

The lack of real definitive answers, besides (logic or the Bible says so), makes it a gamble for all that take part in life.

My heart and soul tell me that I have made the right choice.

What tells you that you have? Is it Logic? Reason? Math? Religion? Hypocrisy? Society? Morality?

These are all ways of man. You have deconverted, so I assume you used to believe, but I do not know what you believed.

Try not to focus too much on belief or non belief, and just kinda roll with it. The truth will prevail, in the end, if necessary, but the truth (not what I say, or what you say), but the truth will prevail.

When we meet in Heaven, I am going to give you SUCH a noogie!!


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 7, 2011)

Let's not confuse being ridiculed with having something you say shown to be ridiculous. I'm focused on the content of the discussion, on what you've said, not on you personally. If you're going to take that as being mocked I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Let's not confuse being ridiculed with having something you say shown to be ridiculous. I'm focused on the content of the discussion, on what you've said, not on you personally. If you're going to take that as being mocked I don't know what to tell you.



Let’s sound it out. "Ridiculous", "Ridicule". Hmmmmm.
Seems like a match there. Better get your story straight, before you claim your innocence.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 7, 2011)

The distinction has already been made and I'm sure it didn't go over your head. Playing the poor mocked believer won't get much mileage with me.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The distinction has already been made and I'm sure it didn't go over your head. Playing the poor mocked believer won't get much mileage with me.



I am the trimuphant mocked believer. Please continue.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2011)

What are your expectations in the A/A/A forum?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Isn't sin the breaking of laws given in the bible? And doesn't the bible itself make the analogy of God to a parental figure? Not sure what your objection is here.


 The Bible references the law of God, as well as many of the laws by which men govern men. God's law is perfect; man's law..... not even close.






atlashunter said:


> In your own life you live according to very different concepts of justice, not because your execution of those concepts is imperfect, that would hold true in any case, but because your idea of what constitutes justice differs from the God of the bible.


Somehow you must have missed the part about rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's. The world places its own burden on those who are within a particular jurisdiction. 

God's law is this: Love Him, Love others, Serve all. If you stick to those things alone, there is no condemnation because all righteousness is found in Jesus. It is exactly what He modeled for us, the way that leads to eternal life with Him.






atlashunter said:


> How did you as an imperfect human reach the conclusion that the God of the bible is perfect? Can't have it both ways my friend.



Knowing that "God is God" is quite sufficient. I need not dig any deeper to recognize that by definition, God is perfect, His ways are perfect, and His plan is perfect. Anything less and he is not God. It does not really require judgment,...... just acknowledgement.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 8, 2011)

Still trying to have it both ways GT. You're clearly making moral judgments concerning God so I'll join in.

The bible does not describe a perfect God by any stretch of the imagination. It's not a perfect plan when you drown every living creature on the planet save for what can be fit on a boat because you are so dissatisfied with it. It's not perfect to test someone's love of you by seeing if they will kill their child at your command. It's not a perfect way to sanction slavery and murder. It's not perfect to create a world in which millions of children die every year from hunger, neglect, and preventable diseases nor would it be a perfect way for anyone with the power to eliminate those deaths to stand by watching and do nothing. It's not perfect to set up a system in which a child rapist may repent and be saved before his death and get an eternal heavenly reward while a man who cared for his family and lived a good life but didn't believe in christ burns forever. This not only falls short of perfection, it would be incredibly evil and unjust if true. We should all be glad that there is no reason to think it is true.

What you see as perfect I see as a monstrosity. Doesn't mean there is no God. There could be an evil God. There could be a perfect God. There might be both Gods. There might be no Gods. But one thing I can say without hesitation is that if there is a good and perfect God, it isn't the God of the bible.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Still trying to have it both ways GT. You're clearly making moral judgments concerning God so I'll join in.
> 
> The bible does not describe a perfect God by any stretch of the imagination. It's not a perfect plan when you drown every living creature on the planet save for what can be fit on a boat because you are so dissatisfied with it. It's not perfect to test someone's love of you by seeing if they will kill their child at your command. It's not a perfect way to sanction slavery and murder. It's not perfect to create a world in which millions of children die every year from hunger, neglect, and preventable diseases nor would it be a perfect way for anyone with the power to eliminate those deaths to stand by watching and do nothing. It's not perfect to set up a system in which a child rapist may repent and be saved before his death and get an eternal heavenly reward while a man who cared for his family and lived a good life but didn't believe in christ burns forever. This not only falls short of perfection, it would be incredibly evil and unjust if true. We should all be glad that there is no reason to think it is true.
> 
> What you see as perfect I see as a monstrosity. Doesn't mean there is no God. There could be an evil God. There could be a perfect God. There might be both Gods. There might be no Gods. But one thing I can say without hesitation is that if there is a good and perfect God, it isn't the God of the bible.



Just 'cause you don't get it doesn't meant it ain't perfect. Just means you don't get it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 8, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What are your expectations in the A/A/A forum?



Same as they are when I walk down the street. People are gonna be people.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 8, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Just 'cause you don't get it doesn't meant it ain't perfect. Just means you don't get it.



Do you "get" how what I listed qualifies as perfect?

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=5923243&postcount=39



atlashunter said:


> Any time you point out things that don't make sense or contradictions in someone's religion they are going to try to make it your fault. It happens on this forum all the time.



I rest my case.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Do you "get" how what I listed qualifies as perfect?
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=5923243&postcount=39
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, you don't get it.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 9, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Still trying to have it both ways GT. You're clearly making moral judgments concerning God so I'll join in.
> 
> The bible does not describe a perfect God by any stretch of the imagination. It's not a perfect plan when you drown every living creature on the planet save for what can be fit on a boat because you are so dissatisfied with it. It's not perfect to test someone's love of you by seeing if they will kill their child at your command. It's not a perfect way to sanction slavery and murder. It's not perfect to create a world in which millions of children die every year from hunger, neglect, and preventable diseases nor would it be a perfect way for anyone with the power to eliminate those deaths to stand by watching and do nothing. It's not perfect to set up a system in which a child rapist may repent and be saved before his death and get an eternal heavenly reward while a man who cared for his family and lived a good life but didn't believe in christ burns forever. This not only falls short of perfection, it would be incredibly evil and unjust if true. We should all be glad that there is no reason to think it is true.
> 
> What you see as perfect I see as a monstrosity. Doesn't mean there is no God. There could be an evil God. There could be a perfect God. There might be both Gods. There might be no Gods. But one thing I can say without hesitation is that if there is a good and perfect God, it isn't the God of the bible.



It is easy to see that explaining to you is approaching hopelessness. It has been repeatedly stated that God created a perfect world. Man was allowed to make his own choices and chose poorly, bringing sin and punishment into the world. Man did this, not God. All the things you attribute to God as being monstrous are actually the righteous anger and holy and perfect judgment  of God falling upon sinful and unholy, unredeemed men. Until you "get that", you will "get nothing". 

ted, you sure have AH patterned.


----------



## JFS (Apr 9, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Man was allowed to make his own choices and chose poorly, bringing sin and punishment into the world. Man did this, not God.



Putting aside the unsupportable world view, even in your own interpretation didn't god know man would do this when he created him, or does god not know the future? I hear god does know the future, so why the rage when he knew this would happen?

The world will be so much better off once these archaic fables fade to quaint cultural history.  You just can't make reasonable judgments when your decisions are informed by literal interpretations of myths and fables.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2011)

gtparts said:


> It is easy to see that explaining to you is approaching hopelessness. It has been repeatedly stated that God created a perfect world. Man was allowed to make his own choices and chose poorly, bringing sin and punishment into the world. Man did this, not God. All the things you attribute to God as being monstrous are actually the righteous anger and holy and perfect judgment  of God falling upon sinful and unholy, unredeemed men. Until you "get that", you will "get nothing".
> 
> ted, you sure have AH patterned.



Cults frequently make statements, doing it repeatedly does not make it true.  We hear these statements, we just do not believe them.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 9, 2011)

JFS said:


> The world will be so much better off once these archaic fables fade to quaint cultural history.  You just can't make reasonable judgments when your decisions are informed by literal interpretations of myths and fables.



I agree. At least we have reached the point where most people pick and choose the good from the bad that their "perfect" God has to offer. Too bad some can't bring themselves to acknowledge that is what they are doing.

GT,
Which man's fault is it exactly when a tsunami wipes out tens of thousands of people? Or when a toddler dies from leukemia? Or when people slowly starve to death due to drought? You're placing blame on the powerless victims who were born into this world as it is, as you believe your God knew it would be from the start, while absolving the same God which you believe has the power to do anything including make the world exactly as he would have it be. And you call this the perfect work of a perfect being... You can't seriously believe that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2011)

MAN started religion LONG before any bible was written. The main reason was to try to ease his own mind about the inevitable (death), to try to explain the unexplainable and to liken it all to a power that looks just like us, acts just like us and thinks just like us, but somehow is perfect. Why, because man-kind WANTS it to be true. No matter the race, creed, geographical location or religion, the human thought process is the same. WE HOPE there is a better place than where we are at now, or at the least continue what we have now, and convincing ourselves that there is makes it easier to not constantly think about our immortality.

We are told in every post on here all there is to know about God, his ways and thoughts, How me meant something, WHY he meant something, heaven, hades, death, afterlife etc etc etc, and all by people that have never seen or talked to god, have never been dead or have ever been to heaven. Every one of the guys that share this information on here each put their own personal thoughts or interpretations into it without knowing anything for sure. Yes. Faith....i get it, but it is not exclusive to one religion or belief or thought process and no one has a monopoly on it.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Cults frequently make statements, doing it repeatedly does not make it true.


 Agreed, but what does that have to do with the subject? Making one true statement does nothing to nullify another true statement. And what you or I believe has no bearing on the truth, either.



bullethead said:


> We hear these statements, we just do not believe them.



Again, what you do or do not believe does not alter the truth.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I agree. At least we have reached the point where most people pick and choose the good from the bad that their "perfect" God has to offer. Too bad some can't bring themselves to acknowledge that is what they are doing.



Since God's very nature is perfect, and therefore, good, it does allow for anything that is in opposition to God, any thought or behavior outside of His will, to be considered bad. God only offers good things. To choose a bad thing is to oppose God and comes from a pride that will not recognize the authority of sovereign God.




atlashunter said:


> GT,
> Which man's fault is it exactly when a tsunami wipes out tens of thousands of people? Or when a toddler dies from leukemia? Or when people slowly starve to death due to drought? You're placing blame on the powerless victims who were born into this world as it is, as you believe your God knew it would be from the start, while absolving the same God which you believe has the power to do anything including make the world exactly as he would have it be. And you call this the perfect work of a perfect being... You can't seriously believe that.



These things are the result of living in a "fallen" world. That means "corrupted". All mankind has corrupted the world in which we live. The first  people did so and it hasn't slowed down. Sin not only corrupted all men, it corrupted every aspect of His creation. All of us see the evidence, but some still see this as the "natural" state of the universe, rather than perfection, wrecked. 

So, those who suffer are not innocent victims. They are only victims in the sense that they are to some degree powerless against the "natural" physical events that "naturally" occur in a corrupted world. 

He made it perfect. We messed it up. He allows us to deal with the physical consequences of our rebelliousness. He also has provided a way to escape the ultimate spiritual consequences.  Why is that so unfair? You don't believe in consequences? Or is it that you don't see opposing God as a big deal? I assure you that He takes it pretty seriously.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> MAN started religion LONG before any bible was written. The main reason was to try to ease his own mind about the inevitable (death), to try to explain the unexplainable and to liken it all to a power that looks just like us, acts just like us and thinks just like us, but somehow is perfect. Why, because man-kind WANTS it to be true. No matter the race, creed, geographical location or religion, the human thought process is the same. WE HOPE there is a better place than where we are at now, or at the least continue what we have now, and convincing ourselves that there is makes it easier to not constantly think about our immortality.
> 
> We are told in every post on here all there is to know about God, his ways and thoughts, How me meant something, WHY he meant something, heaven, hades, death, afterlife etc etc etc, and all by people that have never seen or talked to god, have never been dead or have ever been to heaven. Every one of the guys that share this information on here each put their own personal thoughts or interpretations into it without knowing anything for sure. Yes. Faith....i get it, but it is not exclusive to one religion or belief or thought process and no one has a monopoly on it.



And you know all this to be true because you "noodled it out" by yourself?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2011)

If I had to pick between your version and that, I am leaning towards THAT. I am fine with mortality.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 10, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Since God's very nature is perfect, and therefore, good, it does allow for anything that is in opposition to God, any thought or behavior outside of His will, to be considered bad. God only offers good things. To choose a bad thing is to oppose God and comes from a pride that will not recognize the authority of sovereign God.



Simply not true as evidenced by the very scriptures you believe.




gtparts said:


> These things are the result of living in a "fallen" world. That means "corrupted". All mankind has corrupted the world in which we live. The first  people did so and it hasn't slowed down. Sin not only corrupted all men, it corrupted every aspect of His creation. All of us see the evidence, but some still see this as the "natural" state of the universe, rather than perfection, wrecked.
> 
> So, those who suffer are not innocent victims. They are only victims in the sense that they are to some degree powerless against the "natural" physical events that "naturally" occur in a corrupted world.
> 
> He made it perfect. We messed it up. He allows us to deal with the physical consequences of our rebelliousness. He also has provided a way to escape the ultimate spiritual consequences.  Why is that so unfair? You don't believe in consequences? Or is it that you don't see opposing God as a big deal? I assure you that He takes it pretty seriously.



Wow. So in your world it's man's fault that we have a geologically active earth, diseases, and changing weather patterns and these are only as old as mankind. 

I'm fine with placing responsibility squarely where it belongs. Something you're religion fails to do in just about every case. The kid with leukemia is getting what they deserve in your world and the all powerful, all knowing God you believe in has nothing to do with it or at most is simply letting people suffer for their own choices. Only problem GT is that kid didn't make any choices and certainly didn't deserve to have cancer. Yes GT it's unfair that kids get cancer or die of starvation because they were born in the wrong part of the world. You talk about consequences and yet you as a Christian also believe that if you simply believe in Christ and repent you can escape the consequences of your actions. That's called a loophole, a get out of jail free card, and it's neither moral or just.

This is why I find Christianity so offensive. It places blame where it does not belong and refuses to put it where it does while providing a scapegoat for those who do deserve a punishment for their actions.

We now have the natural explanations for earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc but there are still those who insist they are because we have angered the Gods.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Simply not true as evidenced by the very scriptures you believe.



 Perhaps you should read the Bible for content. Nowhere does Scripture place the responsibility for any sin or suffering on God. Suffering only occurs as a consequence of sin (this does not mean that there is a direct correlation to individual sins, for example many Japanese suffered as a result of decisions made by their national leadership in WWII) , it is because mankind has brought it upon themselves. The Bible tells us exactly why we have death and suffering. It is ALL because of man's sin.... and everyone suffers to some degree in this life as a result. In fact, the whole creation suffers under the curse of sin, as you noted by way of disease and natural disasters. None of this was present in the world before sin entered by way of Adam and Eve.




atlashunter said:


> Wow. So in your world it's man's fault that we have a geologically active earth, diseases, and changing weather patterns and these are only as old as mankind.



Look around. It isn't my world, but diseases and natural disasters are certainly part of it. Man's sin is the singular reason for the these detrimental events and, of course, the elements that contribute to them are regarded as "natural" because people alive today have never experienced things as God originally created them.




atlashunter said:


> I'm fine with placing responsibility squarely where it belongs. Something you're religion fails to do in just about every case. The kid with leukemia is getting what they deserve in your world and the all powerful, all knowing God you believe in has nothing to do with it or at most is simply letting people suffer for their own choices. Only problem GT is that kid didn't make any choices and certainly didn't deserve to have cancer. Yes GT it's unfair that kids get cancer or die of starvation because they were born in the wrong part of the world. You talk about consequences and yet you as a Christian also believe that if you simply believe in Christ and repent you can escape the consequences of your actions. That's called a loophole, a get out of jail free card, and it's neither moral or just.



It is not a matter of deserving, as man might consider it. Your physical appearance is largely dictated by genetics. The world in which you live is largely dictated by the generations that lived before you. The things that you see and experience were largely the result of factors in place before you were even conceived. The sin that was and is the corruption of creation is still effective in the world today, as well as in those who live today. Therein lies the problem we all have..... a sin nature that causes us to rebel against God. God has a way to set all that right, to restore mankind in a new spiritual context. Some of us, by God's grace, have come to recognize and submit to all that that restoration requires. Some, like yourself, have rejected that restoration. We are all spiritual beings having an earthly, physical experience. There are only two outcomes to that experience. Each individual has complete control of which spiritual outcome they will experience for eternity. Choose wisely. 




atlashunter said:


> This is why I find Christianity so offensive. It places blame where it does not belong and refuses to put it where it does while providing a scapegoat for those who do deserve a punishment for their actions.



I really didn't expect you to openly admit your own culpability. Self-righteous pride is a difficult thing to give up. If you can't see your own sin for what it is, you could not be expected to confess and turn from it. Those who do not seek forgiveness, do not receive it.



atlashunter said:


> We now have the natural explanations for earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc but there are still those who insist they are because we have angered the Gods.



All that you consider "natural" is just the world, corrupted by sin. The only reason things are not worse is because God restrains the actions of Satan and the evil of this world.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Perhaps you should read the Bible for content. Nowhere does Scripture place the responsibility for any sin or suffering on God. Suffering only occurs as a consequence of sin (this does not mean that there is a direct correlation to individual sins, for example many Japanese suffered as a result of decisions made by their national leadership in WWII) , it is because mankind has brought it upon themselves. The Bible tells us exactly why we have death and suffering. It is ALL because of man's sin.... and everyone suffers to some degree in this life as a result. In fact, the whole creation suffers under the curse of sin, as you noted by way of disease and natural disasters. None of this was present in the world before sin entered by way of Adam and Eve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I saw a show about people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.  There was one guy who was convinced that if he didn't turn a door knob fifteen times that someone would suffer a horrible death.  Who's to say that he isn't right?  I mean, people suffer horrible deaths all the time but what if one of them could have been prevented by him fiddling with the door knob. 

Maybe God gave him some kind of strange ability to prevent horrible deaths by turning doorknobs.  How can we know?  It's certainly not something that I would do if I were God but He apparently does some odd things in his mystical plan; things that no matter how wrong they seem to me and many others, must be GOOD by virtue of the fact that it was He that did them.  

I hope that that guy turned a doorknob for me....knock on wood.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I saw a show about people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.  There was one guy who was convinced that if he didn't turn a door knob fifteen times that someone would suffer a horrible death.  Who's to say that he isn't right?  I mean, people suffer horrible deaths all the time but what if one of them could have been prevented by him fiddling with the door knob.
> 
> Maybe God gave him some kind of strange ability to prevent horrible deaths by turning doorknobs.  How can we know?  It's not certainly something that I would do if I were God but He apparently does some odd things in his mystical plan; things that no matter how wrong they seem to me and many others, must be GOOD by virtue of the fact that it was Him that did them.
> 
> I hope that that guy turned a doorknob for me....knock on wood.


 Whether or not he ever turns a doorknob for you, I pray that you not die a horrible death, separated from the love of God. While it is exactly what we all deserve, God does not want that for any of us. He has made a way.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Perhaps you should read the Bible for content. Nowhere does Scripture place the responsibility for any sin or suffering on God.



Of course it doesn't. You have to think about what it claims to be able to draw conclusions.




gtparts said:


> Suffering only occurs as a consequence of sin (this does not mean that there is a direct correlation to individual sins, for example many Japanese suffered as a result of decisions made by their national leadership in WWII) , it is because mankind has brought it upon themselves.



Look a parent of a terminally ill child square in the eyes and tell them their child brought it on themselves.




gtparts said:


> The Bible tells us exactly why we have death and suffering. It is ALL because of man's sin.... and everyone suffers to some degree in this life as a result. In fact, the whole creation suffers under the curse of sin, as you noted by way of disease and natural disasters. None of this was present in the world before sin entered by way of Adam and Eve.
> 
> Look around. It isn't my world, but diseases and natural disasters are certainly part of it. Man's sin is the singular reason for the these detrimental events and, of course, the elements that contribute to them are regarded as "natural" because people alive today have never experienced things as God originally created them.



And if the scientific data says you are wrong, that death, weather, disease, and geological processes long predate man, what then?




gtparts said:


> It is not a matter of deserving, as man might consider it.



Oh but it is. It is because if you are punishing people (and animals) who haven't done anything to deserve being punished, for what people they had nothing to do with did long before they ever came into the world, that's injustice. And if your God is as advertised he would be more than capable of visiting punishments on only those who deserved punishment in proportion to their sins. The fact that it isn't that way either means that it's because he doesn't want it that way which would mean he's a very cruel and evil God (not exactly difficult to show based on OT scripture) or the whole thing is a load of bull made up by men, a real remote possibility I know.




gtparts said:


> If you can't see your own sin for what it is, you could not be expected to confess and turn from it. Those who do not seek forgiveness, do not receive it.



Sorry, I'm not a sadomasochist.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Whether or not he ever turns a doorknob for you, I pray that you not die a horrible death, separated from the love of God. While it is exactly what we all deserve, God does not want that for any of us. He has made a way.



Thinking that people deserve to die horrible deaths and burn forever... another good reason not to believe the nonsense. I feel bad for people who are compelled to think so horribly of others.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I saw a show about people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.  There was one guy who was convinced that if he didn't turn a door knob fifteen times that someone would suffer a horrible death.  Who's to say that he isn't right?  I mean, people suffer horrible deaths all the time but what if one of them could have been prevented by him fiddling with the door knob.
> 
> Maybe God gave him some kind of strange ability to prevent horrible deaths by turning doorknobs.  How can we know?  It's not certainly something that I would do if I were God but He apparently does some odd things in his mystical plan; things that no matter how wrong they seem to me and many others, must be GOOD by virtue of the fact that it was Him that did them.
> 
> I hope that that guy turned a doorknob for me....knock on wood.



Let's bring it a little closer to home. How about the folks who are told by God to kill their kids?

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-29/justice/children.slain_1_deanna-laney-insanity-defense-luke-laney?_s=PM:LAW



> Files said Laney believed that God had told her the world was going to end and "she had to get her house in order," which included killing her children.
> 
> "The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files said. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Whether or not he ever turns a doorknob for you, I pray that you not die a horrible death, separated from the love of God. While it is exactly what we all deserve, God does not want that for any of us. He has made a way.



I may die a horrible death. That is a fact that I can accept.  I've seen it and heard about it happening and nothing indicates to me that there is any reason for it.  To assign "purpose" for things like that happening doesn't make sense to me.  I understand the concept that whether or not it makes sense doesn't determine the truth of it or not, but using all the faculties I have at my disposal, I don't come to the conclusion that there is any design behind it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Let's bring it a little closer to home. How about the folks who are told by God to kill their kids?
> 
> http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-29/justice/children.slain_1_deanna-laney-insanity-defense-luke-laney?_s=PM:LAW



There's precedence for that.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 12, 2011)

Let me get this straight.  Over 60%percent of the world is not christitan, and is going to burn. 0f that 40% (its actually less) so called christian population some undoubtedly disagree and dont see each other as christian so they are going to burn.  People who have no or little exposure to christianity, and have no chance to convert are going to burn out of ignorance.  Children who die before they get a chance to convert are going to burn.  People who lead a good life and are good people, but were raised in a different faith are going to burn.  So we have an individual who created all just to have most everyone they supposedly love suffer for eternity.  Who is all powerful but instead of revealing themself, and remove doubt, so most all could avoid suffering, chooses to let most suffer.   

No thanks you can keep your god.  Sounds like a pretty sick individual to me.  To tell me my children, if they were to die before baptism they would roast?  That suffering and and pain is nothing more than a test of faith, and we are being punished for  the original sin.  If that is true your god is anything but loving.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 12, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Let me get this straight.  Over 60%percent of the world is not christitan, and is going to burn. 0f that 40% (its actually less) so called christian population some undoubtedly disagree and dont see each other as christian so they are going to burn.  People who have no or little exposure to christianity, and have no chance to convert are going to burn out of ignorance.  Children who die before they get a chance to convert are going to burn.  People who lead a good life and are good people, but were raised in a different faith are going to burn.  So we have an individual who created all just to have most everyone they supposedly love suffer for eternity.  Who is all powerful but instead of revealing themself, and remove doubt, so most all could avoid suffering, chooses to let most suffer.
> 
> No thanks you can keep your god.  Sounds like a pretty sick individual to me.  To tell me my children, if they were to die before baptism they would roast?  That suffering and and pain is nothing more than a test of faith, and we are being punished for  the original sin.  If that is true your god is anything but loving.



Thanks for your post, hope you stick around for some new conversation, most dont. To pick out one of your points, I dont think your children would "roast" if they die before baptism.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 12, 2011)

I was here before this subsection was created. The only reason for my year of silence was a stupid sonic wall put up by my work that is no longer.  I enjoy the debate and have have no plans for leaving.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 12, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> There's precedence for that.


----------



## bad0351 (Apr 13, 2011)

I am new to this outdoor forum and have been reading this subsection with great interest.....I don't believe there is any "supreme being" that created all of this, never have.
But when it comes time for me to move on...if I meet someone that I know allowed good, loving,  innocent children or adults to die horrible painful death and says they deserve it for the sins they have commited.....then I shall be joining whatever other side there is and be sure to strike him down with violent vengence.....I swear.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 14, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I am new to this outdoor forum and have been reading this subsection with great interest.....I don't believe there is any "supreme being" that created all of this, never have.
> But when it comes time for me to move on...if I meet someone that I know allowed good, loving,  innocent children or adults to die horrible painful death and says they deserve it for the sins they have commited.....then I shall be joining whatever other side there is and be sure to strike him down with violent vengence.....I swear.



The horrible way a person may die is not really the problem when a persons life ends on this earth, in my opinion, its what happens after death that might be the horrible part.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The horrible way a person may die is not really the problem when a persons life ends on this earth, in my opinion, its what happens after death that might be the horrible part.



Yeah that doesn't really help make the case for your religion in light of what he said string.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 14, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Let me get this straight.  Over 60%percent of the world is not christitan, and is going to burn. 0f that 40% (its actually less) so called christian population some undoubtedly disagree and dont see each other as christian so they are going to burn.  People who have no or little exposure to christianity, and have no chance to convert are going to burn out of ignorance.  Children who die before they get a chance to convert are going to burn.  People who lead a good life and are good people, but were raised in a different faith are going to burn.  So we have an individual who created all just to have most everyone they supposedly love suffer for eternity.  Who is all powerful but instead of revealing themself, and remove doubt, so most all could avoid suffering, chooses to let most suffer.
> 
> No thanks you can keep your god.  Sounds like a pretty sick individual to me.  To tell me my children, if they were to die before baptism they would roast?  That suffering and and pain is nothing more than a test of faith, and we are being punished for  the original sin.  If that is true your god is anything but loving.


 Hello TheBishop, That burn in he1l has got to be the most offensive thing pertaining to religion that I can think of. While Christians think that they will warn people to keep them from "burning", all they actually do is distance that person even farther. Let me just say that I am a believer in Jesus as the Christ, but we don't all believe in eternal punishment.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 14, 2011)

You're a strange bird 1gr8bldr. Can't quite figure you out.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello TheBishop, That burn in he1l has got to be the most offensive thing pertaining to religion that I can think of. While Christians think that they will warn people to keep them from "burning", all they actually do is distance that person even farther. Let me just say that I am a believer in Jesus as the Christ, but we don't all believe in eternal punishment.



Do you believe everything Jesus said to be the truth?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're a strange bird 1gr8bldr. Can't quite figure you out.



"Christians" come in all different shades.  (See the post by Gray Man in the Contradictions thread).  My in laws are UCC and are extremely moderate.  Their church even has lesbian ministers. They seem sensible.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> "Christians" come in all different shades.  (See the post by Gray Man in the Contradictions thread).  My in laws are UCC and are extremely moderate.  Their church even has lesbian ministers. They seem sensible.



Don't get me wrong, I like them. He (she?) consistently shows intellectual honesty. I just frequently fail to understand how they get from their premises to their conclusions.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe everything man said Jesus said to be the truth?



Fixed it for ya.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe everything Jesus said to be the truth?



Ever considered the possibility that the bible might not be an accurate portrayal of what Jesus said or didn't say?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Ever considered the possibility that the bible might not be an accurate portrayal of what Jesus said or didn't say?



Yes, I've thought about it, I dont see any reasons why the disciples would have lied about him.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> "Christians" come in all different shades.  (See the post by Gray Man in the Contradictions thread).  My in laws are UCC and are extremely moderate.  Their church even has lesbian ministers. They seem sensible.



They seem sensible only because they have lesbian ministers? Or are there other reasons?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Fixed it for ya.



Thanks!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I've thought about it, I dont see any reasons why the disciples would have lied about him.



Maybe to make the story sound alot more attractive and magical?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Maybe to make the story sound alot more attractive and magical?



Why would they want to do that?  I dont think they were in the business of making the NY times best seller list.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 15, 2011)

Becuase a book about a man doing ordinary things makes it a hard sell that he is the son of god.  Kinda of difficult to gather a following that way.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> They seem sensible only because they have lesbian ministers? Or are there other reasons?



Many other reasons as well.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Becuase a book about a man doing ordinary things makes it a hard sell that he is the son of god.  Kinda of difficult to gather a following that way.



I believe the prophets of the NT believed that Jesus was the son of God because of His miracles and teachings, I think those are the reasons for their writing. I dont think the prophets would have written of a man doing ordinary things, it would have been pointless. There are many reasons why it would have been pointless, most gave up their lives to follow Christ, most went through many hard times, take Paul for example.......
2 Corinthians:  I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.
    Paul didnt exactly live the life of luxury after deciding to follow Christ.The point I guess is I dont see any reasons to write of something that you really dont believe, knowing the consequences of those writings. They had at least one huge reason to write the things they have about Christ, they spent alot of time with him.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Many other reasons as well.



I figured so, but I had to ask.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 15, 2011)

I dont believe in the miracles or his teachings.  I believe they made all that up to make an ordinary man sound extraordinary.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> I dont believe in the miracles or his teachings.  I believe they made all that up to make an ordinary man sound extraordinary.



In light of post #248, why would they want to do that?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 15, 2011)

Agian these stories, even of their suffering, could be completely made up.  Makes it a much better read.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I've thought about it, I dont see any reasons why the disciples would have lied about him.



Well that's kind of like saying I don't see any reasons the followers of Mohammed would have lied about him, isn't it? But it's a moot point in light of the fact that the disciples didn't author the bible.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I believe the prophets of the NT believed that Jesus was the son of God because of His miracles and teachings, I think those are the reasons for their writing. I dont think the prophets would have written of a man doing ordinary things, it would have been pointless. There are many reasons why it would have been pointless, most gave up their lives to follow Christ, most went through many hard times, take Paul for example.......
> 2 Corinthians:  I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.
> Paul didnt exactly live the life of luxury after deciding to follow Christ.The point I guess is I dont see any reasons to write of something that you really dont believe, knowing the consequences of those writings. They had at least one huge reason to write the things they have about Christ, they spent alot of time with him.



1. I'm curious if you believe all miraculous claims made of men during the times of Jesus.

2. Assuming Paul's claims of hardship are true, it no more validates his religious claims than the commitment of the 9/11 hijackers to their beliefs validates islam.

3. Paul may very well have sincerely believed what he wrote and thus been willing to die for it but we don't know that he did so with that intention. How many cult leaders have experienced suffering and death? Did they really believe? Maybe so, maybe not but the strength of their belief doesn't validate the truth of the belief.

4. Paul never met Jesus much less spent a lot of time with him.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Agian these stories, even of their suffering, could be completely made up.  Makes it a much better read.



Again, the prophets were never writing to win the Pulitzer.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well that's kind of like saying I don't see any reasons the followers of Mohammed would have lied about him, isn't it? But it's a moot point in light of the fact that the disciples* didn't author the bible*.



Obviously not the entire Bible.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Obviously not the entire Bible.



Not any of the bible string...


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 1. I'm curious if you believe all miraculous claims made of men during the times of Jesus.


I am not familiar with any other claims backed up like the Bible is.



> 2. Assuming Paul's claims of hardship are true, it no more validates his religious claims than the commitment of the 9/11 hijackers to their beliefs validates islam.


The hijackers of Islam were trying to please a false God by killing people and gain favor by doing so, going from low to high. Paul on the other hand had everything he might have wanted, being a Jewish Roman citizen, and gave it up to follow Jesus' teachings, going from high to low. I dont think one can compare the two. Giving up everything is much different than trying to gain everything.



> 3. Paul may very well have sincerely believed what he wrote and thus been willing to die for it but we don't know that he did so with that intention. How many cult leaders have experienced suffering and death? Did they really believe? Maybe so, maybe not but the strength of their belief doesn't validate the truth of the belief.


I dont know how many cult leaders have suffered and died aside from their own choosing.



> 4. Paul never met Jesus much less spent a lot of time with him.


Yes, I know.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Not any of the bible string...



Mathew or John or James?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Mathew or John or James?



Written by anonymous authors long after Jesus was dead and they don't even make any claim of being authored by the actual disciples.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Written by anonymous authors long after Jesus was dead and they don't even make any claim of being authored by the actual disciples.



So were not exactly sure who wrote them, but Mathew,John or James didnt?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Written by anonymous authors ...



Just not true.  The four gospels we have today were quoted extensively by 2nd and 3rd century Christians, and their authorship was never in question.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I am not familiar with any other claims backed up like the Bible is.



Backed up by what?




stringmusic said:


> The hijackers of Islam were trying to please a false God by killing people and gain favor by doing so, going from low to high. Paul on the other hand had everything he might have wanted, being a Jewish Roman citizen, and gave it up to follow Jesus' teachings, going from high to low. I dont think one can compare the two. Giving up everything is much different than trying to gain everything.



I'm surprised you could say this without seeing striking parallels. You say they followed a false God. Someone could just as easily say Paul followed a false God. It misses the point. It is pretty evident that regardless of whether their God was real or not, they really believed. Now Paul may have had a pretty decent life in his day, but Osama Bin Laden was the heir to a billionaire. Do you really believe that what one gives up to follow their beliefs speaks to the truth of those beliefs? Really? Be consistent if you do.




stringmusic said:


> I dont know how many cult leaders have suffered and died aside from their own choosing.



I can think of a couple cult leaders that are sitting in prison right now, one which claims to be the messiah, which wouldn't be there if they had their choice.

David Koresh only burnt himself and his group up after being surrounded by the authorities. Paul wasn't the first or the last to go down with the ship. Sometimes in the religion business you get in over your head before you realize that it's too late. That may have even been what happened with Jesus.

I'm not saying Paul was a David Koresh type. Don't misunderstand. But I am saying that just because someone suffers or dies for their beliefs regardless of whether or not that was their goal, regardless of whether or not they really believed, it does absolutely nothing to show the truth of their beliefs.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So were not exactly sure who wrote them, but Mathew,John or James didnt?



There is no evidence that Matthew was authored by Matthew the disciple. The gospel itself doesn't even claim that. Same with the others.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)




----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>



AH, I almost never look at a Youtube video that's over a minute in length.  In fairness, I will watch this one when I have more time.

Having said that, I'm not sure why a video of Bart Ehrman should be any more convincing to me than a video of Ravi Zacharias would be to you.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> In fairness, I will watch this one when I have more time.



Based on what he says in the first minute and a half, Herodotus and Thucydides are not reliable, either.

I'll watch the rest later.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> There is no evidence that Mathew was authored by Mathew the disciple. The gospel itself doesn't even claim that. Same with the others.



Papias of Hierapolis.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

Well if you or Mr Zacharias can mount a convincing case refuting what Ehrman says in that video (not controversial among scholars in Ehrman's field) I'd be happy to check it out.

With respect to your first post, citing the "gospel of Matthew" is not the same as making the claim that Matthew the disciple was the author. But for any in the 2nd or 3rd century who did make that claim, how would they know?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Papias of Hierapolis.



Can you elaborate?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Can you elaborate?



It's at least _some_ evidence that Mathew, tax collecter and disciple of Jesus, wrote the book of Mathew.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

You may want to provide a source and an explanation of what "It" is that you are referring to. I confess complete ignorance of Papias of Hierapolis but what I just read about him on wikipedia doesn't help your case.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You may want to provide a source and an explanation of what "It" is that you are referring to. I confess complete ignorance of Papias of Hierapolis but what I just read about him on wikipedia doesn't help your case.


This is from wiki about Mathew.....
"The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The tradition that it was written by* Matthew the tax-collector can be traced to Papias of Hierapolis (c.125-150 CE), who wrote that "Matthew put together (or in some manuscripts, "wrote") *the sayings (logia) in the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able." Modern scholars interpret Papias to mean that Matthew made a collection of Jesus's sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic, which others then translated. Papias does not identify this Matthew, but it is likely that he meant the Matthew the tax-collector of the Gospel."

....and I'm not trying to put together some great case, it's just merely some evidence to which you said there were none.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well if you or Mr Zacharias can mount a convincing case refuting what Ehrman says in that video (not controversial among scholars in Ehrman's field) I'd be happy to check it out.



First of all, I wouldn't dispute many of his points -- the dates of the gospels, for example.  Second, there are many besides Zacharias who would take issue with a lot of his other points and would offer differing views.  Whether or not they refute Ehrman is up to you to decide.

On a side note, I really don't understand the fascination with Bart Ehrman.  He's just the "flavor of the month" when it comes to the "Christian who has abandoned Christianity".  Shelby Spong was that guy for a long time.  Now, it's Ehrman.  When Ehrman's gone, it'll be somebody else.

On another side note, I stand by my earlier statement that Ehrman must not take Herodotus and Thucydides as reliable, either.  Do you believe Herodotus and Thucydides were reliable recorders of history? 




atlashunter said:


> With respect to your first post, citing the "gospel of Mathew" is not the same as making the claim that Mathew the disciple was the author.



I'm not talking about citing the gospel.  I'm talking about referring to the disciple Matthew as the author.  Same goes for Mark, Luke and John.




atlashunter said:


> But for any in the 2nd or 3rd century who did make that claim, how would they know?



Because no one before them ever believed or claimed differently.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> This is from wiki about Mathew.....
> "The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The tradition that it was written by* Matthew the tax-collector can be traced to Papias of Hierapolis (c.125-150 CE), who wrote that "Matthew put together (or in some manuscripts, "wrote") *the sayings (logia) in the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able." Modern scholars interpret Papias to mean that Matthew made a collection of Jesus's sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic, which others then translated. Papias does not identify this Matthew, but it is likely that he meant the Matthew the tax-collector of the Gospel."
> 
> ....and I'm not trying to put together some great case, it's just merely some evidence to which you said there were none.



Ok when I spoke of evidence I was setting the bar higher than a Christian from the 2nd century claiming it to have been written by Matthew. I'm sure you read the rest of that section which casts serious doubt on its being authored by a disciple.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> On another side note, I stand by my earlier statement that Ehrman must not take Herodotus and Thucydides as reliable, either.  Do you believe Herodotus and Thucydides were reliable recorders of history?



That would depend. Ehrman isn't saying you can't have a true claim absent the criteria he lays out. He's saying those are the criteria historians look for and yes it would also apply to other authors and time periods. Also entirely possible that you could have all of the criteria and still be telling a lie.




centerpin fan said:


> Because no one before them ever believed or claimed differently.



Sort of what one would expect of an anonymous writing that was later attributed to a disciple either because people really believed that was the author or for other reasons. 

To believe that Matthew was authored by the disciple you have to believe that this disciple lived to 80-90CE at a time when life expectancy was probably around 40 years old, that he was either literate (in Greek) as a disciple or became literate later on in life, that he was an eye witness to the events but still relied on the gospel of Mark as a source, and that he referred to himself in the third person. And on top of all this unlike Paul, he didn't declare himself the author in the text. Is that what you believe?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That would depend. Ehrman isn't saying you can't have a true claim absent the criteria he lays out. He's saying those are the criteria historians look for and yes it would also apply to other authors and time periods. Also entirely possible that you could have all of the criteria and still be telling a lie.



Do you know of any historian that regards Herodotus and Thucydides as completely unreliable?  Cuz I don’t.




atlashunter said:


> Sort of what one would expect of an anonymous writing that was later attributed to a disciple ...



Who said that?  I've never read anything that even remotely hinted that anyone other than Matthew wrote it.




atlashunter said:


> Sort of what one would expect of an anonymous writing that was later attributed to a disciple either because people really believed that was the author or for other reasons.



... such as Matthew really did write it and nobody ever disputed that.




atlashunter said:


> To believe that Matthew was authored by the disciple you have to believe that this disciple lived to 80-90CE at a time when life expectancy was probably around 40 years old, that he was either literate (in Greek) as a disciple or became literate later on in life, that he was an eye witness to the events but still relied on the gospel of Mark as a source, and that he referred to himself in the third person. And on top of all this unlike Paul, he didn't declare himself the author in the text. Is that what you believe?



I find that scenario far more believable than the alternative:  that some illiterate Galileans and their followers made up lies about Jesus and endured persecution, torture and death because of those lies.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 16, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Who said that?



You just watched Ehrman say it in that video. This is in a debate Michael Licona at an evangelical seminary. Now watch this video and skip to the 14 minute mark to hear Licona's response to Ehrman's points which include the anonymous authorship. He doesn't contest the truth of Ehrman's objections but instead calls them red herrings. If he disagreed with the assertion that the gospels aren't eye witness accounts and could call Ehrman out on that point it would be a huge blunder not to point out that the gospel really was an eye witness account authored by the disciple himself. I also don't recall William Lane Craig disputing Ehrman on this point either when they debated the same topic.






centerpin fan said:


> I've never read anything that even remotely hinted that anyone other than Matthew wrote it.



Here is what wikipedia says concerning Matthew with references noted if you are interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew



> The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author...
> 
> By the end of the 2nd century the Matthew tradition had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.
> 
> ...



... such as Matthew really did write it and nobody ever disputed that.






centerpin fan said:


> I find that scenario far more believable than the alternative:  that some illiterate Galileans and their followers made up lies about Jesus and endured persecution, torture and death because of those lies.



I don't know why. I'm sure we can cite plenty of examples of people dying for things they believed in or claims they made _including other claimants of miracle working and heavenly powers from that same time frame_ that would not convince you their claims were true.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 16, 2011)

stringmusic,

To get back to the original point, there are many questions raising doubt about the historical reliability of the bible. We know that the KJV cites Jesus as saying things that in some cases weren't in the manuscript until many centuries after he had been dead and the original gospels written. In other words, it was added by a scribe. Even if all of the criteria Ehrman said historians look for were there, the miracle claims would still not be any more believable than contemporary corroborating claims of alien abduction are.

You have to wonder concerning the miracle claims, why no miracles were performed that could later be verified or falsified and why we no longer see the sorts of miracles claimed in the bible being performed today ie people being turned to salt, parting of seas, sun stopping in the sky for a battle to be won?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You have to wonder concerning the miracle claims, why no miracles were performed that could later be verified or falsified and why we no longer see the sorts of miracles claimed in the bible being performed today ie people being turned to salt, parting of seas, sun stopping in the sky for a battle to be won?



I sure could use that water into wine trick, (more like budlight or some crown royal).


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm a very busy CPA and don't have time now to check the video -- maybe later.  

The Wikipedia passage you cite says "most scholars today doubt this tradition".  Maybe so, but the early church did not.  Regardless, I don't regard Wikipedia as authoritative.

Regarding this, though:



atlashunter said:


> I'm sure we can cite plenty of examples of people dying for things they believed in or claims they made ...



I'm sure we can, but I'm not talking about people dying for what they believed was true.  I'm talking about people being beheaded, fed to lions and skinned alive _for something they absolutely, positively knew to be false_.  That doesn't make a lick of sense.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Mathew or John or James?



HONESTLY????
You don't even have a CLUE to who wrote these things. The EARLIEST writings in the NT were some 60 years AFTER Jesus' death, the majority was written MUCH later than that. The names of the authors were not the ones who were the disciples. None of those authors walked and talked with Jesus, let alone have ever met him.

Do some research into it and see when these Books were written and who wrote them. You'll quickly find out that what you always thought to be true is again, not.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 16, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> The Wikipedia passage you cite says "most scholars today doubt this tradition".  Maybe so, but the early church did not.  Regardless, I don't regard Wikipedia as authoritative.



I figured that is how you would respond which is why I pointed out that wikipedia includes its sources for reference. Here is another site that cites a number of sources.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html



> It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.
> 
> Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):
> 
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Here is another site that cites a number of sources.



I have never doubted there were people who believed that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> HONESTLY????
> You don't even have a CLUE to who wrote these things. The EARLIEST writings in the NT were some 60 years AFTER Jesus' death, the majority was written MUCH later than that. The names of the authors were not the ones who were the disciples. None of those authors walked and talked with Jesus, let alone have ever met him.
> 
> Do some research into it and see when these Books were written and who wrote them. You'll quickly find out that what you always thought to be true is again, not.



Hello bullethead, I agree. This is how I think it happened. The first Christians were just going about their lives, talking about the events, probably not thinking of writing down anything, mainly because they had the apostles still living. Later as they began to die off or should I say, get killed off, people began to realize that someone should record the stories that the apostles told about Jesus. I believe that the titles, such as, "the Gospel according to Mark" actually gives insight into this. No one would name his own writing like that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe everything Jesus said to be the truth?


Yes, I believe Jesus to be truthful, but I don't consider everything written in a red letter bibles to be his literal words. I see them as mans honest attempt to record what he considers to be truth. I do think that a very small percentage of what we see to actually be corruption as a result of the early Catholic church trying to force their religion during the fight over "orthodoxy"


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello bullethead, I agree. This is how I think it happened. The first Christians were just going about their lives, talking about the events, probably not thinking of writing down anything, mainly because they had the apostles still living. Later as they began to die off or should I say, get killed off, people began to realize that someone should record the stories that the apostles told about Jesus. I believe that the titles, such as, "the Gospel according to Mark" actually gives insight into this. No one would name his own writing like that.



Over 50% of the words in Matthew are exactly as written in Mark. 

The problem with writing in 2nd,3rd,4th person is that it is never as accurate as 1st person. In grade school the teacher would whisper a short sentence to the first student and by the time it was passed on to the last person the ENTIRE sentence was so different that it had nothing to do with the original. These writings in the NT are at the earliest 60+ years after is supposedly happened.  Embellished is an understatement. Arguments for the inspired words of God can be thrown out the window when the words are written down generations after it ever happened. Paul may be the only actual one that wrote anything down, and Peter did not trust Paul as far as he could throw him. Paul was once an executioner of Christians while Jesus was alive and he found God after Jesus' death.  Peter felt that Paul was just saying that to get close to the other living disciples to turn them in. Paul's writings often told different tales.

These people were enslaved and oppressed. You better believe it that they told stories many years after they happened. These stories were made to give hope to the people of future generations. These original writings were in a language that was used long after the time of Jesus' life. The majority of disciples were made up of mostly uneducated fisherman that could barely read or write and they were not the ones who wrote it all down 60, 75, 120 years after Jesus and in another language.

One main problem I see is that many other stories were also written around the same times that contradicted these NT writings. Oddly they just happened to not make it in the Bible. Smart move to only include the ones that back your side and leave the ones out that don't.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Yes, I believe Jesus to be truthful, but I don't consider everything written in a red letter bibles to be his literal words. I see them as mans honest attempt to record what he considers to be truth. I do think that a very small percentage of what we see to actually be corruption as a result of the early Catholic church trying to force their religion during the fight over "orthodoxy"



If you were an omnipotent god and wanted to convey an important message to all of mankind is this how you would choose to do it?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If you were an omnipotent god and wanted to convey an important message to all of mankind is this how you would choose to do it?


No, not through a book. The beauty of it all has been lost. Before Jesus came, religion abounded everywhere. But it was used to suppress the little man. It also suppressed women. Like so many of the tyrants in the middle east, everything that was seemingly "of God" was corrupt. Everything was a total misrepresentation of God. There is so much that misrepresented God. From idols to perverted priest and everything in between. Jesus came not exalting himself, not going after riches, not, well you get the picture. I don't want to get to biblical.


----------

