# Free will



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

Do people in heaven have free will? If they do wouldn't they still sin? What happens if you sin in heaven?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 29, 2011)

We will be given new, incorruptible bodies.  The devil and his angels will have been banished and will have no power over God's people.  Rev 21:4 reads, "... there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying.  There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

My understanding is that there is sin because God gives us free will to sin. Will we still have free will in heaven? Lucifer and the angels had free will when they were in heaven. Will people?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Will we still have free will in heaven?



What do you mean, "we"?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

"We" humans. Don't worry I wasn't including myself. I'll be roasting with Mark Twain.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I'll be roasting with Mark Twain.



That's too bad.  MT is one of my favorites.  I would have enjoyed talking to him for a couple of millennia.

To your original question, who can say for sure?  I believe we have free will on earth, and I have no idea why that would be taken from us in heaven.  I am certain, however, that there will be no temptation to sin in heaven.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

Then how was lucifer able to sin in heaven? If it was possible for angels in heaven to disobey God wouldn't it be possible for humans too?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 29, 2011)

Satan fell because he believed he was the equal of God.  No believer in heaven could ever or would ever believe that.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

What would prevent a human in heaven from disobeying or rebelling against God?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What would prevent a human in heaven from disobeying or rebelling against God?



The sheer awe and joy of being in His presence.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 29, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> The sheer awe and joy of being in His presence.



That sounds like a place where free will doesn't exist. Interesting.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 29, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> That sounds like a place where free will doesn't exist. Interesting.



I'll let you know when I get there. I am pretty sure I know what your address will be.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 29, 2011)

This is just my opinion based on the perfection that is integral to being in God's very presence, but I am convinced that the desire for things which are contrary to His will shall not exist, that all the saints will gladly relinquish the exercise of personal free will for the joy of an eternity being in His Glory 

or 

perhaps, all the saints will choose to exercise their free in perfect harmony with His will.

With or without free will, it will be as CF has indicated in post #2.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

Not really sure what it means to have perfection that is integral to being in Gods's presence but it didn't work out too well with Lucifer.

If it is true that people and angels can undergo some magical transformation where they keep their free will but can't disobey God why not just start at that point and skip the whole sin and blood sacrifice/crucifixion bit?

Same thing if you undergo a transformation where you lose your free will when you pass through the pearly gates. Why not just create the obedient beings that you want from the get go if you are all powerful and that is your ultimate goal?

At least that way there would be no place of eternal burning which surely a loving God would prefer there not be.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Not really sure what it means to have perfection that is integral to being in Gods's presence but it didn't work out too well with Lucifer.
> 
> If it is true that people and angels can undergo some magical transformation where they keep their free will but can't disobey God why not just start at that point and skip the whole sin and blood sacrifice/crucifixion bit?
> 
> Same thing if you undergo a transformation where you lose your free will when you pass through the pearly gates. Why not just create the obedient beings that you want from the get go if you are all powerful and that is your ultimate goal?At least that way there would be no place of eternal burning which surely a loving God would prefer there not be.



Creating robots would not have been very interesting or greative. Would have made for boring TV.

Correct, that is why he sent Jesus.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

I agree ted, it wouldn't be very interesting. But if people are inherently evil as I've been repeatedly told in other threads and if there is sin in the world because God gives us free will as I've also been told, then it is possible for people in heaven to sin. If it isn't possible for people in heaven to sin then why not create them in that way to begin with and bypass the fall, people burning forever, sending your son to be killed to so that you could forgive people, etc?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I agree ted, it wouldn't be very interesting. But if people are inherently evil as I've been repeatedly told in other threads and if there is sin in the world because God gives us free will as I've also been told, then it is possible for people in heaven to sin. If it isn't possible for people in heaven to sin then why not create them in that way to begin with and bypass the fall, people burning forever, sending your son to be killed to so that you could forgive people, etc?



I believe this was explained (quite well) in post #2 by CF.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

No it wasn't. That post doesn't even attempt to answer the questions raised in my last post.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 29, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I'll let you know when I get there. I am pretty sure I know what your address will be.



Such a nice christian you are!


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 29, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I believe this was explained (quite well) in post #2 by CF.



It doesn't get close to answering it. Are you capable of doing something _other_ than just telling me where I'm going?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 29, 2011)

The real question is, why do all of these topics about Christianity keep popping up in the AAA forum? Then all the AAA's do in the Christianity forums do is chastise and mock the topics over there.

Don't you AAA's have any good secular conversational topics to mull over? Or are your lives really that boring?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 30, 2011)

This is the forum for those topics Miguel. I'm sure most posting here take part in discussing other topics in their respective forums.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 30, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Such a nice christian you are!



Some times the truth is ugly.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 30, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> It doesn't get close to answering it. Are you capable of doing something _other_ than just telling me where I'm going?



Old bodies left behind (worms gotta eat same as the buzzards) replaced by new uncorruptible ones. No need to sin.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 30, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Some times the truth is ugly.



And your delusions are strong.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 30, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Old bodies left behind (worms gotta eat same as the buzzards) replaced by new uncorruptible ones. No need to sin.



You theists need to get your story straight. Is there sin because of free will or sin because we have imperfect bodies? Either way an all powerful God could just cut to the chase and create the perfection to begin with rather than creating an imperfect mess then going through a bloody convoluted mess to achieve what he really supposedly wanted all along but knew wouldn't happen from before he even started. Sounds inept and schizophrenic to me.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You theists need to get your story straight. Is there sin because of free will or sin because we have imperfect bodies? Either way an all powerful God could just cut to the chase and create the perfection to begin with rather than creating an imperfect mess then going through a bloody convoluted mess to achieve what he really supposedly wanted all along but knew wouldn't happen from before he even started. Sounds inept and schizophrenic to me.



You've asked the same question several times, with slightly different wording, in this thread regarding God and why He created the world and mankind as He did. i.e "Why did God not just produce that which He ultimately desires from the beginning?"

Here is my answer.

He did. He constructed a perfect world and gave mankind  free will,  that could result in His crowning creation rejecting Him. Only in that way could He provide an opportunity for individuals to choose to love and serve Him. God wants every individual to make that choice, yet He knows that some will choose to do otherwise. He rewards those who make that choice in His favor, by giving them eternal life with Him (that's spiritual eternal life, not physical). 

It all depends on the choice we make. He has revealed all that is necessary for each to make that informed decision based on faith, not scientific proof. He wants us to trust and depend on Him. Not on science, not on wealth, not on our own strength, not on our own reason and intellect. All of those things have their appropriate place and use, but none of those things are adequate to bring you into a right relationship with Him. They are simply the wrong tools for the task. God has revealed Himself in His creation, in His recorded Word, and, finally, in the person of Jesus, the perfect embodiment of God. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice to satisfy the requirements of the Holy Father placed upon His sin-corrupted creation. Jesus took the hit for all of us, even though He deserved none of it. He has provided believers with the support of the Holy Spirit so that they may remain steadfast in the faith.

That's the plan, the only plan, the perfect plan to separate those who choose to love Him from those who will not. 

What's not to like about a plan that provides grace where the ultimate punishment of eternal separation from God is justly earned by each of us?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 30, 2011)

What is free will as you understand it Atlas. Where did your concept that free will is the cause of sin come from in the Bible? When you answer these questions, Ill know better how to answer your question.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

gtparts said:


> That's the plan, the only plan, the perfect plan to separate those who choose to love Him from those who will not.



GT thanks for the reply. I have asked the same question several times in different ways and still don't feel like the question has actually been addressed. I'm isolating the above statement because it illustrates the point I am trying to make.

A plan to separate those who choose to love him from those who don't only makes sense in the context of a God that isn't omniscient. Or to put it another way, an omniscient God has no need for such a plan because he already knows the outcome before he even gets started. He would know long before you were ever created every single thought you would have, every action you would take, every decision you would make, and he would know what your final choice and destination would be. If it were his desire to only have products of his creation who would choose him he could only create those products and bypass any need for he11. An omniscient God would know how Lucifer would turn out and everything that would come of it before he created him. So why do it if that isn't what he wanted? And why create something knowing in advance that you will be so displeased with it that you will send it to eternal torment? Seems pretty diabolical don't you think?

Imagine a sword maker who has a certain standard of quality that must be met. A human sword maker is going to have some turn out right and some not make the cut and he will have to test each one to discover which ones are up to par. But that would be an absurdity for an omniscient being. The omniscient being would know whether the sword would turn out right before he even got started on it. If he didn't want the bad sword he simply wouldn't make it. And an omnipotent sword maker would be perfectly capable of making only perfect swords. The only way possible such a being could make an imperfect sword is if he wanted to and chose to.

If there is an ideal (from God's viewpoint) body, spirit, person, etc and people are not that ideal but will be made that ideal (ie incapable of sin) in heaven why not skip straight to that point if that is the goal? And why not subject Lucifer to that same process of perfection or just not create him in the first place?

The bottom line is this. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then there can only be satan, sin, evil, and people going to be with satan if that is what he wanted and intended from before he even got started with any of it.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> GT thanks for the reply. I have asked the same question several times in different ways and still don't feel like the question has actually been addressed. I'm isolating the above statement because it illustrates the point I am trying to make.
> 
> A plan to separate those who choose to love him from those who don't only makes sense in the context of a God that isn't omniscient. Or to put it another way, an omniscient God has no need for such a plan because he already knows the outcome before he even gets started. He would know long before you were ever created every single thought you would have, every action you would take, every decision you would make, and he would know what your final choice and destination would be. If it were his desire to only have products of his creation who would choose him he could only create those products and bypass any need for he11. An omniscient God would know how Lucifer would turn out and everything that would come of it before he created him. So why do it if that isn't what he wanted? And why create something knowing in advance that you will be so displeased with it that you will send it to eternal torment? Seems pretty diabolical don't you think?
> 
> ...



You make an excellent point. God could very well choose to skip right to the end and completely eliminate the drama and struggle. The truth is simply, He has chosen to let this play out in the life of each person in his or her own time. I believe it is for a reason. I believe that in eternity, in heaven, the lessons that the saints have learned and practiced and lived out will have significance and application. 

It probably won't be of great importance to those who rejected Jesus as Lord and Savior, who find themselves separated from Him for eternity, UNLESS one aspect of their torment is to continually review the opportunities for salvation during their life that they declined to respond to positively. 

It is my contention that those who were exposed to the Christian faith early in their life and turned away, have for the most part done so as the result of some crisis, some pivotal event where their immature faith was challenged. Instead of asking how this experience fits in with God and His plan, they asked how does God fit in to my experience.

 In the one instance, God is the given, He is the anchor point for all further examination and action. In the latter instance, the anchor point is a reliance on ones own experience and reason that leads to seeing God as optional or unnecessary. 

If one places oneself in the position of ultimate arbiter of all truth, one leaves no place for God. It is a short term, short-sighted, myopic view of life.

If one gives God His rightful place in their life, one has no need of relying on his own inconstant and unreliable feelings or his own distorted perspective of his experiences. Relying on God relieves one of hoping that his or her personal view is accurate and right.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

If you start with the assumption that the God proposition is true and don't allow for the possibility that it isn't then what other conclusion could you possibly reach? Do you not see the danger in this sort of thinking?



> It is my contention that those who were exposed to the Christian faith early in their life and turned away, have for the most part done so as the result of some crisis, some pivotal event where their immature faith was challenged. Instead of asking how this experience fits in with God and His plan, they asked how does God fit in to my experience.
> 
> In the one instance, God is the given, He is the anchor point for all further examination and action. In the latter instance, the anchor point is a reliance on ones own experience and reason that leads to seeing God as optional or unnecessary.



There is some truth to this in my own case. I think the real differentiation is the willingness to consider that you could be wrong in your assumptions or beliefs. If you assume a false proposition as a given and use that as your anchor point then you have created a situation where it isn't possible to discover and correct the error. The outcome will be the same whether you assume the god of Abraham or any other god or mythological figure. This is incidentally exactly what happens with people in cults. Once they become convinced that their cult leader is something that he really isn't they are blinded from figuring it out because they refuse to question or use their reason to see if it all adds up. They start from the false assumption and go from there.

Often it can be a crisis moment combined with this willingness to question and examine the foundational logic of religious belief that can lead to an eye opening experience.

In any religion if you can convince people either by persuasion or fear to not question, to not reason, then you've got them. That's the cage that can imprison a mind. Which is exactly why many religions have various forms of he11. It's not to get people to behave. It's to get people to believe. To scare them away from questioning and doubting. And it is very effective.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If you start with the assumption that the God proposition is true and don't allow for the possibility that it isn't then what other conclusion could you possibly reach? Do you not see the danger in this sort of thinking?
> 
> 
> There is some truth to this in my own case. I think the real differentiation is the willingness to consider that you could be wrong in your assumptions or beliefs. If you assume a false proposition as a given and use that as your anchor point then you have created a situation where it isn't *possible to discover and correct the error.* The outcome will be the same whether you assume the god of Abraham or any other god or mythological figure. This is incidentally exactly what happens with people in cults. Once they become convinced that their cult leader is something that he really isn't they are blinded from figuring it out because they refuse to question or use their reason to see if it all adds up. They start from the false assumption and go from there.
> ...



Your above explaination seems to promote some sort of revelation that one might get after choosing to place their faith in something other than God. Is that the case?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

Not really sure I understand what you are asking but what I am saying in the part you highlighted is testing if your assumption or belief is correct.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Not really sure I understand what you are asking but what I am saying in the part you highlighted is testing if your assumption or belief is correct.



The quote in a whole seems as if some revelation occurs.  For the part in red, what is the discovery that is made, and where does it lead?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The quote in a whole seems as if some revelation occurs.  For the part in red, what is the discovery that is made, and where does it lead?



The discovery that you were likely wrong. If you mean revelation in the sense that your thought processes lead you to see something in a way you hadn't before, something that was there all along but you never really pieced together then yes. If by revelation you mean it in the religious supernatural sense, no that isn't what I was saying.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If you start with the assumption that the God proposition is true and don't allow for the possibility that it isn't then what other conclusion could you possibly reach? Do you not see the danger in this sort of thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Likewise, if you start with the assumption that the God proposition is false and  don't allow for the possibility that it isn't then what other conclusion  could you possibly reach? Do you not see the danger in this sort of  thinking? 
Seems that being completely rigid, at least before one has sufficient experience to be utterly convinced, is the choice that is unreasoning. To examine the proposition from both sides would appear to be the best decision.

The Bible even encourages it. "Taste and see that the Lord is good." I have and He is. 

The other side seems to conclude that the cosmos is completely indifferent. If there is no God, there is only what is. No God, no good, no bad....... completely indifferent. 

Yet, all of us tend to recognize both good things and bad things, good people and bad people, pleasant circumstances and unpleasant. We even have a sense of good versus evil. Oooooo, that's scary!

If the cosmos is indifferent, why is it that we are not indifferent? Obviously, total indifference does not exist..... not among humans, or animals, and perhaps not even plant life.Is it just some concept that serves us personally? Certainly doesn't explain altruism. I could go all day, every day, seeking what I deem to be good for myself without ever caring or lending a hand to help someone else.

So, if good and bad are more than mere concepts,... if they are real and in some sense quantifiable, where do they originate?

I think I'll stop here and let you mull that over.

Have a blessed day.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> *The discovery that you were likely wrong.* If you mean revelation in the sense that your thought processes lead you to see something in a way you hadn't before, something that was there all along but you never really pieced together then yes. If by revelation you mean it in the religious supernatural sense, no that isn't what I was saying.



where does this lead? To a better more fulfilling life? More money, cars, bigger house, what? If you convinced me that I was wrong and I accepted it, what does that mean for me? Granted there is a presuppostion that you accept meaning to life. Seems to me that life would have no meaning, or hope, or reason of anything else.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Likewise, if you start with the assumption that the God proposition is false and  don't allow for the possibility that it isn't then what other conclusion  could you possibly reach? Do you not see the danger in this sort of  thinking?
> Seems that being completely rigid, at least before one has sufficient experience to be utterly convinced, is the choice that is unreasoning. To examine the proposition from both sides would appear to be the best decision.



I wouldn't say that I'm not allowing for the possibility. Just about anything is theoretically possible. It takes more than possibility to accept a claim as true, at least for me. I will not start with the premise that God is true as a given as I thought you were suggesting before. And I expect you wouldn't start with that premise with any other god would you? I'm not any more closed off to the possibility that there might be a god than I am that there might be leprechauns. There _might_ be. But I won't presume it. If someone is going to make that positive claim then they need to have convincing evidence.





gtparts said:


> The Bible even encourages it. "Taste and see that the Lord is good." I have and He is.



You know the beauty of a book as self contradictory as the bible is you can always find scripture that backs you up. The bible also says lean not on your own understanding. It's no wonder Christians still can't agree on theology after 2,000 years.




gtparts said:


> The other side seems to conclude that the cosmos is completely indifferent. If there is no God, there is only what is. No God, no good, no bad....... completely indifferent.
> 
> Yet, all of us tend to recognize both good things and bad things, good people and bad people, pleasant circumstances and unpleasant. We even have a sense of good versus evil. Oooooo, that's scary!



That's right. These are terms that only hold any meaning in a human context.




gtparts said:


> If the cosmos is indifferent, why is it that we are not indifferent?



Because we are human and the cosmos isn't.




gtparts said:


> Obviously, total indifference does not exist..... not among humans, or animals, and perhaps not even plant life.Is it just some concept that serves us personally? Certainly doesn't explain altruism. I could go all day, every day, seeking what I deem to be good for myself without ever caring or lending a hand to help someone else.



Yeah you could. But for social animals who depend on each other sometimes doing exclusively what seems best for you really isn't in the long run.




gtparts said:


> So, if good and bad are more than mere concepts,... if they are real and in some sense quantifiable, where do they originate?



They originate with us and are only real for as long as we are here to make them real.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> where does this lead? To a better more fulfilling life? More money, cars, bigger house, what? If you convinced me that I was wrong and I accepted it, what does that mean for me? Granted there is a presuppostion that you accept meaning to life. Seems to me that life would have no meaning, or hope, or reason of anything else.



The answers to those questions is really up to you. Whether the God claim is true or not, the fact remains you are here for some finite amount of time and what you do with that time is entirely up to you. You say no hope and I would ask hope for what? It depends on what it is you are hoping for.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The answers to those questions is really up to you. Whether the God claim is true or not, the fact remains you are here for some finite amount of time and what you do with that time is entirely up to you.


So everything is relative?



> You say no hope and I would ask hope for what? It depends on what it is you are hoping for.



Hope for anything, especially blacking out when I die and thats the end. How miserable.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 31, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> What is free will as you understand it Atlas. Where did your concept that free will is the cause of sin come from in the Bible? When you answer these questions, Ill know better how to answer your question.



Hello?

This is integral to the discussion as you presuppose certain things.  No interest in testing those out?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So everything is relative?



Sorry I can't give your life meaning. You have to find that for yourself. It's something unique to each individual. 

Though it does seem kind of an odd question to me. I don't mean this to come off as mocking but what is the meaning of my black lab's life? Or the life of one the bees out in my hive? What about the neanderthal living in a cave 40,000 years ago? Or their ancestors a few hundred thousand years before? Does every life that has ever been and ever will be have some great cosmic meaning? Or is it only humans that have a special meaning? If so, at what point in our evolution and by what device was that meaning acquired? When you look out at the universe and consider all that is out there and happening right now, the unimaginable distances, the vast power, and so on do you look at all of that and feel like you're at the center of it?

Frankly the universe was getting on fine before we came along and that will continue long after we are gone. 




stringmusic said:


> Hope for anything, especially blacking out when I die and thats the end. How miserable.



No more miserable than you were when the pyramids were being constructed. You won a lottery against incredible odds to have a life. Countless potential people never even get a shot at a single day. It's really taking that for granted to not be satisfied unless you get to live forever. Besides, living for eternity would be more miserable IMO. You'd eventually get bored out of your mind. I think people vastly overestimate the ability of their minds to experience eons of time. We would all like to live longer than we do or at least live until we decide we've had enough. But I wouldn't want to live forever.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> Hello?
> 
> This is integral to the discussion as you presuppose certain things.  No interest in testing those out?



Control over your mind and body. Have you never heard Christians challenged with "why the holocaust? why suffering? why evil in the world?" respond with "Because God gives us free will"?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Do people in heaven have free will? If they do wouldn't they still sin? What happens if you sin in heaven?



They don't get to listen to Rush for all eternity.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It takes more than possibility to accept a claim as true, at least for me


So what does it take for you to accept a claim as true? Something you've seen with your own eyes? Something that can be repeated in a laboratory? An eye witness account? I'm just curious where you draw the line here.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 31, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I'll let you know when I get there. I am pretty sure I know what your address will be.



Actually, you nor anyone else on this forum know what any one's address will be. 

Luke 14:7-11 

 7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”


----------



## JFS (Jan 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Hope for anything, especially blacking out when I die and thats the end. How miserable.



I'm glad your beliefs make you happy, I really am, but this position to me is akin to someone saying they believe in Santa because Christmas would not be any fun if you didn't.  Well, it might be more fun to believe in Santa, but that doesn't make it true, and some of us can't ignore the facts to enable a happiness based on false notions, regardless of how good it would feel.  And once you accept the facts as they are you can still build on love and gratitude to make the day special even without the prospect of magical rewards.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 31, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Actually, you nor anyone else on this forum know what any one's address will be.
> 
> Luke 14:7-11
> 
> 7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”



Yeah, it was a cheap shot. I appreciate you pointing this verse out though, helps me to learn the error of my ways. With Humble Thanks, Ted


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 31, 2011)

JFS said:


> I'm glad your beliefs make you happy, I really am, but this position to me is akin to someone saying they believe in Santa because Christmas would not be any fun if you didn't.  Well, it might be more fun to believe in Santa, but that doesn't make it true, and some of us can't ignore the facts to enable a happiness based on false notions, regardless of how good it would feel.  And once you accept the facts as they are you can still build on love and gratitude to make the day special even without the prospect of magical rewards.



There are plenty of discussion on what my faith is based on. What about yours? Is it safe to assume that yours is based on fact?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Control over your mind and body. Have you never heard Christians challenged with "why the holocaust? why suffering? why evil in the world?" respond with "Because God gives us free will"?



that is too imprecise. Try this: what makes an act of the will free?

As to whether Christians say it, sure, I've heard that. I've heard Christians say all manner of things, but that doesn't make those things "Christian". Christians are people of the Book no? So if your claim is that sin exists because of free will (and nothing else), show me from the book. 

Don't fall into the Hitchens fallacy of debating the imperfect practices of those who call themselves Christians. That can only prove that Christians are imperfect...and no one will argue that point.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

They all claim to be people of the book. The problem johnny is you can have different christians saying different things and they can all point to scriptures that "prove" their case and as you indicate they say things that may not have any biblical basis. Usually it's whatever sounds good to them at a particular point in a conversation. I'm really not interested in going back and forth with you nit picking what free will is or isn't. Nor am I going to argue the point with you that there is sin because of free will. That is a claim that christians regularly make. Whatever you want to say is the source of sin, Lucifer was able to do it while in heaven in the presence of God. If it isn't possible for people to do the same thing in heaven I'd like to know why not. Ultimately if God is as advertised then there can only be a devil, sin, and a hot place to burn billions of people forever because that is exactly what he wanted and planned on.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 1, 2011)

It's not nit picking. It's essential. If you're going to be an accuser, you have to check the soundness of your assertions. If you have no interest in their soundness I can only assume that your only interest is stirring the pot. 

This, by the way, is what makes the "new" atheist so much weaker than Kant and Russell. They don't know the Bible.


----------



## dawg2 (Feb 1, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> that is too imprecise. Try this: what makes an act of the will free?
> 
> As to whether Christians say it, sure, I've heard that. I've heard Christians say all manner of things, but that doesn't make those things "Christian". Christians are people of the Book no? So if your claim is that sin exists because of free will (and nothing else), show me from the book.
> 
> Don't fall into the Hitchens fallacy of debating the imperfect practices of those who call themselves Christians. That can only prove that Christians are imperfect...and no one will argue that point.


  That is a very good point.  I am glad you brought that up.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

You are nit picking johnny. I told you how I viewed free will but I'm not going to argue the point with you for two reasons. First it isn't really my claim, it's a very common Christian claim. If you want to argue the point argue it with them. Second, it isn't essential to the point I am making. I'm willing to grant you whatever understanding of free will you want to assert if you would just get on with it.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You are nit picking johnny. I told you how I viewed free will but I'm not going to argue the point with you for two reasons. First it isn't really my claim, it's a very common Christian claim. If you want to argue the point argue it with them. Second, it isn't essential to the point I am making. I'm willing to grant you whatever understanding of free will you want to assert if you would just get on with it.



It may be a very common Christian claim, but if you don't understand the claim, your argument is dead to begin with.  Arguments require precision and what you're doing is assigning your definition or refusing to specify on your definition.  That leads to equivocation and semantic victories (which are worthless).  The "old" atheists understood this.  The new ones don't seem to care.

And, again, if you can't point it out to me in Scripture, you're not providing an attack on Christianity, just on a popular conception of one aspect of Christianity (those who would agree with you on the definitions you propose).  So, if the goal is to show internal inconsistencies in Biblical Christianity, you MUST start with the Bible.  Otherwise you just show inconsistencies in Christians which are numerous and are not debated.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

More nit picking. It's not my claim to defend so I'm not going to. If you think I don't understand it and think it important to addressing the point below then please explain.


You're avoiding the real point here which is this:

Whatever you want to say is the source of sin, Lucifer was able to do it while in heaven in the presence of God. If it isn't possible for people to do the same thing in heaven I'd like to know why not. Ultimately if God is as advertised then there can only be a devil, sin, and a hot place to burn billions of people forever because that is exactly what he wanted and planned on.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> More nit picking. It's not my claim to defend so I'm not going to. If you think I don't understand it and think it important to addressing the point below then please explain.
> 
> 
> You're avoiding the real point here which is this:
> ...



Is it only nitpicking if you are unsure how to answer my question?  In reality, the answers to the questions I've asked are ABSOLUTELY essential the answer to your big question.

YET, you refuse to delve in beyond some surface "popular saying" level.  Your arguments are never going to be hard to refute as long as you refuse to delve into their nooks and crannies.

Oh, and the discussion of freedom is important for far more than just Christians.  You really should look into it.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

> If you think I don't understand it and think it important to addressing the point below then please explain.



In case you missed it the first time.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm sure your explanation would also be beneficial to the christian lurkers here who love to trot it out when pressed on the reason for suffering. Do it for their sake if you can't do it for mine.


----------



## Steve Thompson (Feb 1, 2011)

Faith - How this universe was created, the energy used, energy gathered, the transformation process of diffrent types of energy is so far beyond our scope that we had to have a message that would break it down to layman terms. Faith in the message God has left is knowing that he has given us clear instructions on how to live, and how to die. Knowing that this "soul" or energy within is going to move into another form and reserect in another demision is somthing I am certian of & I'm sure we wont mind being on the same page with everybody there!
  Our "will" to chose or deny God, is one way we were created equal.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Whatever you want to say is the source of sin, Lucifer was able to do it while in heaven in the presence of God. If it isn't possible for people to do the same thing in heaven I'd like to know why not. Ultimately if God is as advertised then there can only be a devil, sin, and a hot place to burn billions of people forever because that is exactly what he wanted and planned on.



God did not tolerate it with Satan. I'd say it would be against His character to give people a pass on this one. Holy God will not abide such. Doing so would violate His very nature. If "free will" is part of heaven, it is "limited free will". It would be presumptuous to assume some kind of equivalency between Satan, an angel and fallen to boot, and people, especially the redeemed.


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 1, 2011)

To put it simply, you have to come up with the scriptures showing when and where (and in the presence of who) Lucifer sinned. There are key elements you are missing here by trying to "simplify" the story. When you can back up your side of the story with scripture, Christians will take you seriously.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

gtparts said:


> God did not tolerate it with Satan. I'd say it would be against His character to give people a pass on this one. Holy God will not abide such. Doing so would violate His very nature.



I agree. So that would mean your time in heaven is eternal only as long as you don't screw it up and disobey?




gtparts said:


> If "free will" is part of heaven, it is "limited free will". It would be presumptuous to assume some kind of equivalency between Satan, an angel and fallen to boot, and people, especially the redeemed.



The equivalency I see is independence of mind. Satan and co. had it before and after the fall. We have it now. Seems to reason you would have it in heaven too short of some kind of transformation that takes it away. But if that is the case why not just start with that for everyone destined to be there?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2011)

gtparts said:


> God did not tolerate it with Satan. I'd say it would be against His character to give people a pass on this one. Holy God will not abide such. Doing so would violate His very nature. If "free will" is part of heaven, it is "limited free will". It would be presumptuous to assume some kind of equivalency between Satan, an angel and fallen to boot, and people, especially the redeemed.



God to a Christian at the Pearly Gates:

"You can have all the ice cream you want, but not to the point that it becomes gluttony.  Better yet, how about I just remove from you the impulse to glut before I let you into Heaven.  And lets get rid of that pesky Lust while we're at it.  There.  Now you're mind is right.  Go lie down with the lion and the lamb."


Would it go something like that?


Did this notion of "limited free will" come from the Bible or did you deduce it in order for the Bible or your notion of God to make sense?  Did you arrive at the notion of "limited free will" through discernment?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> In case you missed it the first time.



The topic is very broad, which is why I asked a clarifying question earlier ("What makes an act of the will free?").  When you answer this, I'll know where to begin.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> _The equivalency I see is independence of mind. Satan and co. had it before and after the fall. We have it now._



You're making my case for why your understanding of freedom is essential to this discussion...FWIW


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 2, 2011)

You have free will in heaven, but your motives are very different in heaven. Lucifer was an angel, not a human.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 3, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> You have free will in heaven, but your motives are very different in heaven. Lucifer was an angel, not a human.



Because you've been reprogrammed?


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 3, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Because you've been reprogrammed?



Because you don't have the sin nature that is plaguing mankind. Just like Adam and Eve in the garden. The difference is Satan won't be there to tempt us this time...

BTW, exactly what particular sin do you have in mind?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 3, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Because you don't have the sin nature that is plaguing mankind. Just like Adam and Eve in the garden. The difference is Satan won't be there to tempt us this time...
> 
> BTW, exactly what particular sin do you have in mind?



Reprogrammed.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 3, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> BTW, exactly what particular sin do you have in mind?



Will fornication with my 70 virgins count as a sin?  Will my 70 virgins have free will to refuse?  If they did refuse, would that be a sin?


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 3, 2011)

You are reprogrammed the day you accept Jesus in your heart and let go of your earthly prides and fears. Something I have an incredibly hard time doing to Christ satisfaction.


----------



## Big7 (Feb 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Will fornication with my 70 virgins count as a sin?  Will my 70 virgins have free will to refuse?  If they did refuse, would that be a sin?



Thought it was 72... But since that is FALSE we will never know for sure. (if it's 70 or 72 that is)


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Do people in heaven have free will? If they do wouldn't they still sin? What happens if you sin in heaven?



Ain't no people in heaven.

There's only God, His Son, other heavenly beings, and all of God's other children.    No people.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 9, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Ain't no people in heaven.
> 
> There's only God, His Son, other heavenly beings, and all of God's other children.    No people.



I'm confused.  When a person goes to Heaven, he is no longer a person?  Is that what you're saying?  What does he then become?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 9, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> I'm confused.  When a person goes to Heaven, he is no longer a person?  Is that what you're saying?  What does he then become?



Don't exactly know what he becomes, only that he will become like Jesus.  This body of our is human.  All of this stuff will be left behind.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 9, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Don't exactly know what he becomes, only that he will become like Jesus.  This body of our is human.  All of this stuff will be left behind.



What do you believe about a person's mind in Heaven?  If Sam, a Christian, remembers getting a pocket knife for his sixth birthday, when he dies and goes to Heaven, will he remember getting that gift, or will he have a different mind with no memories of Earthly events?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> What do you believe about a person's mind in Heaven?  If Sam, a Christian, remembers getting a pocket knife for his sixth birthday, when he dies and goes to Heaven, will he remember getting that gift, or will he have a different mind with no memories of Earthly events?



I dont think anybody can truely answer this question. IMO, I belive that a soul in Heaven doesnt remember the past life, there is no sorrow or sadness or anything else thats not holy in Heaven, there is in this life.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I dont think anybody can truely answer this question. IMO, I belive that a soul in Heaven doesnt remember the past life, there is no sorrow or sadness or anything else thats not holy in Heaven, there is in this life.



Then what's the point of this life?  If you're not even going to remember what you do on this planet, then are you really even going to be YOU in Heaven?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 9, 2011)

What if YOU want to be reunited with your relatives, but THEY don't want to be around you?  Or vice-versa?

Who gets their version of heaven?  You or them?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 9, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> What do you believe about a person's mind in Heaven?  If Sam, a Christian, remembers getting a pocket knife for his sixth birthday, when he dies and goes to Heaven, will he remember getting that gift, or will he have a different mind with no memories of Earthly events?



I don't know.  I'm not so sure that existance can be properly considered using our way of thinking.  I think that's why the book of Revelation speaks very loosely when it attempts to describe heaven.

But, using my earth brain for just a moment, I can't possibly see why a child of God, in His presence, would care to think of a stupid earthly pocket knife.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 9, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't know.  I'm not so sure that existance can be properly considered using our way of thinking.  I think that's why the book of Revelation speaks very loosely when it attempts to describe heaven.
> 
> But, using my earth brain for just a moment, I can't possibly see why a child of God, in His presence, would care to think of a stupid earthly pocket knife.



Fair enough.  I'll use a less "stupid" example then.  If you have kids, would you like to be able to remember the day they were born?  How about the first time one of them said, "Dada"?  Would you care to remember those things?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 9, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Fair enough.  I'll use a less "stupid" example then.  If you have kids, would you like to be able to remember the day they were born?  How about the first time one of them said, "Dada"?  Would you care to remember those things?



On this side of eternity, laying in the hospital bed with my family gathered around me, I'm not so sure I'll be hoping to see them in heaven or remember their births.
I know, at that moment, I'll be thankful that I was able to spend earth time with those God gave me. 
I'm pretty resolved to leave things of the spirit to God.
Wish I could tell you more but I can't.


----------



## BRIAN1 (Feb 9, 2011)

ted_bsr said:


> i believe this was explained (quite well) in post #2 by cf.



i agree.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> What if YOU want to be reunited with your relatives, but THEY don't want to be around you?  Or vice-versa?
> 
> Who gets their version of heaven?  You or them?



This is a question based on silly, unbiblical notions of what heaven might be.

There is one focus in heaven and it has nothing to do with His creation.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 10, 2011)

God is who gets His version of Heaven and what we want is not going to amount to much.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 10, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> This is a question based on silly, unbiblical notions of what heaven might be.
> 
> There is one focus in heaven and it has nothing to do with His creation.



What I said wasn't serious, but are you saying that you do not believe that those saved will see their loved ones again in heaven?  By seeing their loved ones again, I mean that they will know them and remember who they are.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 10, 2011)

Either people will not remember their past lives in Heaven, or there will be sorrow and sadness in Heaven.  You can't have it both ways.  Every Christian knows someone who is "lost."  If you remember these people in Heaven, you will surely be sad that they are burning for all of eternity.  If you don't remember them in Heaven, then essentially, you're a robot.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> What I said wasn't serious, but are you saying that you do not believe that those saved will see their loved ones again in heaven?  By seeing their loved ones again, I mean that they will know them and remember who they are.



That's not what I'm saying...just saying that seeing loved ones will be a tertiary attraction there.  The focus will be on the Godhead.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 10, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> That's not what I'm saying...just saying that seeing loved ones will be a tertiary attraction there.  The focus will be on the Godhead.



Someone very close to me was molested and raped by her father throughout her childhood, along with her sister.  She still has psychological issues from the experience.  Her brothers were physically abused and none of the children would have any contact with their father after they were old enough to "escape".  Later in his life, their father made numerous attempts to reconnect with the children but none wanted any relationship with him whatsoever.  Their father sent letters explaining how he had repented and been saved and joined a church and changed his life, etc.  This was very disturbing to my friend because she could not forgive him and the thought of seeing him again, even in heaven, made her physically sick.  She discussed this with me on several occassions.  Even though my earlier post was made in jest, it was based on a serious issue that I was faced with in the past.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Someone very close to me was molested and raped by her father throughout her childhood, along with her sister.  She still has psychological issues from the experience.  Her brothers were physically abused and none of the children would have any contact with their father after they were old enough to "escape".  Later in his life, their father made numerous attempts to reconnect with the children but none wanted any relationship with him whatsoever.  Their father sent letters explaining how he had repented and been saved and joined a church and changed his life, etc.  This was very disturbing to my friend because she could not forgive him and the thought of seeing him again, even in heaven, made her physically sick.  She discussed this with me on several occassions.  Even though my earlier post was made in jest, it was based on a serious issue that I was faced with in the past.



I think that I would try to delicately tell her that if her father has truly repented than he is no longer the man that abused her.  He is a new creation and, as such, she should forgive him the way that the Father has.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 10, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> I think that I would try to delicately tell her that if her father has truly repented than he is no longer the man that abused her.  He is a new creation and, as such, she should forgive him the way that the Father has.



I know this is the christian thing to do, but there is no way I could forgive a person for something like that. This is just another reason why I cant be christian. In my eyes, this fella couldnt be saved for his actions. He deserves the worst.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 10, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> I know this is the christian thing to do, but there is no way I could forgive a person for something like that. This is just another reason why I cant be christian. In my eyes, this fella couldnt be saved for his actions. He deserves the worst.



*This is exactly why you can be a Christian.* Christ is better than all of us. His power to forgive knows no bounds. Neither does his power to heal those who have been wronged.

If you see people you know in heaven, you will remeber them, but the joy of being in the presence of God will supercede any thought or feeling or emotion you had on earth.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Someone very close to me was molested and raped by her father throughout her childhood, along with her sister.  She still has psychological issues from the experience.  Her brothers were physically abused and none of the children would have any contact with their father after they were old enough to "escape".  Later in his life, their father made numerous attempts to reconnect with the children but none wanted any relationship with him whatsoever.  Their father sent letters explaining how he had repented and been saved and joined a church and changed his life, etc.  This was very disturbing to my friend because she could not forgive him and the thought of seeing him again, even in heaven, made her physically sick.  She discussed this with me on several occassions.  Even though my earlier post was made in jest, it was based on a serious issue that I was faced with in the past.



A truly depraved man doing truly evil acts. But as someone said above being "saved" is like being reprogrammed. We can not know the pain she carries, but there was one man that knows this pain 100 fold. Yet, he died for people like her dad so he may have a chance to come out of the death and depravity this world brings.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Someone very close to me was molested and raped by her father throughout her childhood, along with her sister.  She still has psychological issues from the experience.  Her brothers were physically abused and none of the children would have any contact with their father after they were old enough to "escape".  Later in his life, their father made numerous attempts to reconnect with the children but none wanted any relationship with him whatsoever.  Their father sent letters explaining how he had repented and been saved and joined a church and changed his life, etc.  This was very disturbing to my friend because she could not forgive him and the thought of seeing him again, even in heaven, made her physically sick.  She discussed this with me on several occassions.  Even though my earlier post was made in jest, it was based on a serious issue that I was faced with in the past.



This girl and her brothers don't owe their father earthly father anything at this point.  They need to be urged to all God to heal their bodies, hearts, and minds.  
God can work in their lives to bring peace and happiness back to each of them.
They don't need their father for that.  
You tell this girl/lady not to fret about seeing her father in heaven.  In heaven there will be no hearache, pain, or bad memories.

None of this should be a big deal for her.
She has a right to never have contact with her father again if that's what she chooses.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 10, 2011)

If he ever tries to contact them again she should get a court order against him if its what she wants.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> *This is exactly why you can be a Christian.* Christ is better than all of us. His power to forgive knows no bounds. Neither does his power to heal those who have been wronged.
> 
> If you see people you know in heaven, you will remeber them, but the joy of being in the presence of God will supercede any thought or feeling or emotion you had on earth.



This gives me an uneasy feeling believing that someone of this nature can be "saved". I just dont agree with it. Due to his actions, God should punish and reject him. He does it for people who dont believe, right? I have a hard time accepting that all sins are created equal. Why would it be acceptable to save a man who rapes children and not save a man who questions god? Doesnt make sense to me. If thats the case, why would I want to participate?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> If he ever tries to contact them again she should get a court order against him if its what she wants.



Her father died 6 or 8 years ago.  The contact with him on earth is no longer a factor.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> This gives me an uneasy feeling believing that someone of this nature can be "saved". I just dont agree with it. Due to his actions, God should punish and reject him. He does it for people who dont believe, right? I have a hard time accepting that all sins are created equal. Why would it be acceptable to save a man who rapes children and not save a man who questions god? Doesnt make sense to me. If thats the case, why would I want to participate?



whether you miss the mark a little(greatest guy in the world) or by a lot (worst guy in the world) you miss the mark either way. The only way to get to that mark.... is that mark.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> This gives me an uneasy feeling believing that someone of this nature can be "saved". I just dont agree with it. Due to his actions, God should punish and reject him. He does it for people who dont believe, right? I have a hard time accepting that all sins are created equal. Why would it be acceptable to save a man who rapes children and not save a man who questions god? Doesnt make sense to me. If thats the case, why would I want to participate?



Fantastic post.  This is an obvious example of the irrationality of Christianity.  A murderer/rapist can repent and be saved and spend eternity in Heaven while an honest, hard-working, family oriented doubter will burn forever and ever for not believing in the historicity of an event that supposedly took place 2000 years ago?  Yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 11, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Her father died 6 or 8 years ago.  The contact with him on earth is no longer a factor.



And it won't be a factor in heaven.
Even if she see's him there.
And he could very well be there.
God is willing to forgive and forget things that we struggle just to stop them from haunting us.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> This gives me an uneasy feeling believing that someone of this nature can be "saved". I just dont agree with it. Due to his actions, God should punish and reject him. He does it for people who dont believe, right? I have a hard time accepting that all sins are created equal. Why would it be acceptable to save a man who rapes children and not save a man who questions god? Doesnt make sense to me. If thats the case, why would I want to participate?



Believe it.  God could save him, and even worse.
It's an amazing thing to consider.
It'll drive us to be willing to forgive things in people that
seem to be unforgiveable.
But, believe me, I understand your thoughts.  They make perfect human sense.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Fantastic post.  This is an obvious example of the irrationality of Christianity.  A murderer/rapist can repent and be saved and spend eternity in Heaven while an honest, hard-working, family oriented doubter will burn forever and ever for not believing in the historicity of an event that supposedly took place 2000 years ago?  Yeah, that makes sense.




It doesn't have to make sense!


----------



## gtparts (Feb 11, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Believe it.  God could save him, and even worse.
> It's an amazing thing to consider.
> It'll drive us to be willing to forgive things in people that
> seem to be unforgiveable.
> But, believe me, I understand your thoughts.  They make perfect human sense.





Ronnie T said:


> It doesn't have to make sense!



Sure, it makes sense. As humans, we look at wrongs perpetrated against others as varying in the level of pain and suffering, some grading system that ranks evil deeds as mildly evil, moderately evil, excessive evil, brutally evil, and barbaric evil, or pure evil. 

But, God is the judge of sin. Sin is anything that stands in opposition to His perfect will. Being perfect, holy, loving, just, and sovereign, it is entirely His call and He is consistent in His judgment. Mercy is also His nature.

All sin is against God and God alone. It is the transgression of His desire, which issues from His nature.  
Once one can understand the difference between breaking man's rules (or some secular moral code) and violating the principles of God, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Sure, it makes sense. As humans, we look at wrongs perpetrated against others as varying in the level of pain and suffering, some grading system that ranks evil deeds as mildly evil, moderately evil, excessive evil, brutally evil, and barbaric evil, or pure evil.
> 
> But, God is the judge of sin. Sin is anything that stands in opposition to His perfect will. Being perfect, holy, loving, just, and sovereign, it is entirely His call and He is consistent in His judgment. Mercy is also His nature.
> 
> ...



Just so I'm clear, are you saying that in god's eyes, all sins are equal?

Sin A - six year old boy stealing a candy bar
Sin B - gangmember murdering a child in a drive-by shooting

In god's eyes, are sins A and B equal?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Sure, it makes sense. As humans, we look at wrongs perpetrated against others as varying in the level of pain and suffering, some grading system that ranks evil deeds as mildly evil, moderately evil, excessive evil, brutally evil, and barbaric evil, or pure evil.
> 
> But, God is the judge of sin. Sin is anything that stands in opposition to His perfect will. Being perfect, holy, loving, just, and sovereign, it is entirely His call and He is consistent in His judgment. Mercy is also His nature.
> 
> ...





dexrusjak said:


> Just so I'm clear, are you saying that in god's eyes, all sins are equal?
> 
> Sin A - six year old boy stealing a candy bar
> Sin B - gangmember murdering a child in a drive-by shooting
> ...



No.What he's saying is that no matter what God does it is good.  God can wipe out the whole world with a flood, pestilence or The Stay Puff Marshmallow Man and it is good.

I think it's dumb.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 11, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Believe it.  God could save him, and even worse.
> It's an amazing thing to consider.
> It'll drive us to be willing to forgive things in people that
> seem to be unforgiveable.
> But, believe me, I understand your thoughts.  They make perfect human sense.



With all do respect, I dont want him saved, I want him to suffer. He doesnt deserve being saved. I dont want to forgive someone like that. Anyone that believes he should if he repents is absolutley out of thier mind. What in the world could make you believe such a thing?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Just so I'm clear, are you saying that in god's eyes, all sins are equal?
> 
> Sin A - six year old boy stealing a candy bar
> Sin B - gangmember murdering a child in a drive-by shooting
> ...





stringmusic said:


> whether you miss the mark a little(greatest guy in the world) or by a lot (worst guy in the world) you miss the mark either way. The only way to get to that mark.... is that mark.



I think this is a good illustration, see post #99


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> With all do respect, I dont want him saved, I want him to suffer. He doesnt deserve being saved. I dont want to forgive someone like that. Anyone that believes he should if he repents is absolutley out of thier mind. What in the world could make you believe such a thing?



see post #99 as well.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I think this is a good illustration



I thought it was the silliest thing ive seen in a while on here. Whats even more silly is saying that a repented murderer/rapist can be saved while a man in question of god will burn forever. That doesnt make sense. I really hate to say it, because I really enjoy reading all of the believers post, but you guys have been absolutley brainwashed out of this world.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> With all do respect, I dont want him saved, I want him to suffer.


Good thing humans dont make that decision, he may want the same for you because you did something sick in his worldview. Its also a good thing that you believe in objective morals, otherwise, you have no ground to stand on.





> He doesnt deserve being saved.


No he doesnt, and neither do you, or me or anyone else. You can thank God for His FREE gift of grace.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 11, 2011)

Your illustration pertains to ballistics of a rifle or an arrow. If it takes that little to convince you that all sins are the same then I dont know how to argue with you. I dont know what would ever make you believe in that. Seems as if the christian god is one heartless fella. And speaking of ground to stand on, wheres yours? your belief in god? All OF IT IS BELIEF, THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO GROUND TO STAND ON.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> No he doesnt, and neither do you, or me or anyone else. You can thank God for His FREE gift of grace.



Why?


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> No.What he's saying is that no matter what God does it is good.  God can wipe out the whole world with a flood, pestilence or The Stay Puff Marshmallow Man and it is good.
> 
> I think it's dumb.



I have to agree. More than dumb, just insane.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 11, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> It doesn't have to make sense!



To me, this is a copout.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Why?


 
Because...
*Romans 3:10*
As it is written, There is *none* *righteous*, no, not one.
*Romans 3:23*
For *all* have *sinned*, and come short of the glory of God

The "ALL" means everyone. Self included.  I have no righteousness of my own to compare to God's, there is nothing in my hands to tip the scales.
So, if one's sins were "bigger" than anothers, and that would justify God dealing justice to _THAT_ one, 
then He must, in all fairness, deal us ALL the same justice.

BTW, He _HAS_... when He allowed His only Son to take on those sins and pay the penalty.  No other sacrifice, or any "good" works, will do for ANY person, what Christ has done for us on the cross.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> I have to agree. More than dumb, just insane.



But you know what will fix it?  Human sacrifice.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> Because...
> *Romans 3:10*
> As it is written, There is *none* *righteous*, no, not one.
> *Romans 3:23*
> ...



Why?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> This gives me an uneasy feeling believing that someone of this nature can be "saved". I just dont agree with it. Due to his actions, God should punish and reject him. He does it for people who dont believe, right? I have a hard time accepting that all sins are created equal. Why would it be acceptable to save a man who rapes children and not save a man who questions god? Doesnt make sense to me. If thats the case, why would I want to participate?



Someone of that nature can't be saved.  Christ provides a new nature for the lost.  That's the message of Christianity.  Christ's message was revolutionary because it said that, sure murder is bad, but if you've been angry, you're guilty of murder.  The standard is so much higher than we can fathom and we ALL fall short.

It's acceptable for God to save whoever he wishes because HE is the one who has paid the debt.  He has rights over his creatures.  

You would want to participate because it is true and is the state of reality.  The injustice you sense is an interesting subjective observation, but the reality is that those who are not united with Christ will be punished eternally for their sin.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Your illustration pertains to ballistics of a rifle or an arrow. If it takes that little to convince you that all sins are the same then I dont know how to argue with you. I dont know what would ever make you believe in that. Seems as if the christian god is one heartless fella. And speaking of ground to stand on, wheres yours? your belief in god? All OF IT IS BELIEF, THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO GROUND TO STAND ON.



Its just a simple illustration, its not what brought me to believe what I do. I made the illustration to give you a visual look into the degrees of sin.
What reference point are you using to make the claim that "God is one heartless fella"? How do you distinguish good from evil?
As far as the "ground to stand on" I stated that you were using objective morals to make you claims, I guess the better question would have been "do you believe in objective moral values since you use them?"


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Why?



Sin, God is holy, therefor not in the presence of sin, if one wants to be with God, one must except Jesus Christ as Saviour as to be completly forgiven for sin.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Sin, God is holy, therefor not in the presence of sin, if one wants to be with God, one must except Jesus Christ as Saviour as to be completly forgiven for sin.



But why?!  Why is it logical for a being with unlimited power and intellect to choose such a barbaric means by which to redeem humanity?  Why not just demand a nice letter of apology?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> But why?!  Why is it logical for a being with unlimited power and intellect to choose such a barbaric means by which to redeem humanity?  Why not just demand a nice letter of apology?



What's your basis for declaring something barbaric?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> With all do respect, I dont want him saved, I want him to suffer. He doesnt deserve being saved. I dont want to forgive someone like that. Anyone that believes he should if he repents is absolutley out of thier mind. What in the world could make you believe such a thing?



I'm sure you don't want him saved.  But God doesn't think like you or I.  Ideally, as a disciple of Christ, I should forgive him, and I hope I would try to do that.
But God wouldn't just try.
God isn't like you and I.  When God forgives me, and there were some giant things God had to forgive me of, he forgot them as though I never did them.  And He loves me as though I never did them.

God will do the same for you if you'd ever want Him to.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> I thought it was the silliest thing ive seen in a while on here. Whats even more silly is saying that a repented murderer/rapist can be saved while a man in question of god will burn forever. That doesnt make sense. I really hate to say it, because I really enjoy reading all of the believers post, but you guys have been absolutley brainwashed out of this world.



Not brainwashed, but touched by the love and kindness of God.
And forgiven by God.  
The rapist and the man in question of God will both be saved for the same reason.  Having faith in Christ as His Son, and seeking to be like Him.
Doesn't mean I'm perfect.
Long way from it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> To me, this is a copout.



I don't mean it as a copout.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> I thought it was the silliest thing ive seen in a while on here. Whats even more silly is saying that a repented murderer/rapist can be saved while a man in question of god will burn forever. *That doesnt make sense.* I really hate to say it, because I really enjoy reading all of the believers post, but you guys have been absolutley brainwashed out of this world.



What doesnt make sense about it? A guy does something bad and then accepts Christ, dies with salvation from Christ. Another guy who does not believe in God, dies without the salvation from Christ, thus, both people end up in differing realities in the end.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> What's your basis for declaring something barbaric?



Common sense.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> What doesnt make sense about it? A guy does something bad and then accepts Christ, dies with salvation from Christ. Another guy who does not believe in God, dies without the salvation from Christ, thus, both people end up in differing realities in the end.



The punishment in no way fits the crime.  Should we punish every broken law with the death penalty?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> *The punishment in no way fits the crime.*  Should we punish every broken law with the death penalty?



And who gets to decide that? If morals are subjective, that punishment may not be enough for me.

A person that dies without wanting to spend eternity with their creator, gets exactly what they wanted, why do you see that as such a horrible thing?


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And who gets to decide that? If morals are subjective, that punishment may not be enough for me.
> 
> A person that dies without wanting to spend eternity with their creator, gets exactly what they wanted, why do you see that as such a horrible thing?



Again I say....common sense.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Common sense.



So is it ok for me to do "barbaric" things if I dont possess common sense?

Is common sense subjective?


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And who gets to decide that? If morals are subjective, that punishment may not be enough for me.
> 
> A person that dies without wanting to spend eternity with their creator, gets exactly what they wanted, why do you see that as such a horrible thing?



Really?

Look, people choose to believe whatever they perceive to be most plausible.  Based on evidence (and lack of evidence) I believe there is no god.  Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and Christian beliefs are dead on accurate.  When I die and stand before God, at that point, why would I deserve to burn forever?  My biggest crime would be doubting the truth of some pretty far-fetched claims.  The dude beside me in line at the golden gates may have raped and murdered a child and then found Jesus in prison.  He gets to go in while I burn forever?  You believe this?  Really?


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So is it ok for me to do "barbaric" things if I dont possess common sense?
> 
> Is common sense subjective?



I don't care about other people's common sense.  I'm not talking about what you believe to be moral or immoral or what Joe Blow down the street beliefs.  I've got to use my own common sense, my own brain, to decide what actions I believe to be moral and immoral.  My brain tells me murder is bad and honesty is good.  I don't need a 2000 year old book to enlighten me with this knowledge.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Really?
> 
> Look, people choose to believe whatever they perceive to be most plausible.  Based on evidence (and lack of evidence) I believe there is no god.  Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and Christian beliefs are dead on accurate.  When I die and stand before God, at that point, why would I deserve to burn forever?  My biggest crime would be doubting the truth of some pretty far-fetched claims.  The dude beside me in line at the golden gates may have raped and murdered a child and then found Jesus in prison.  He gets to go in while I burn forever?  You believe this?  Really?



Do you want to spend eternity in Heaven?


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do you want to spend eternity in Heaven?



If it existed then obviously I would (as opposed to the alternative), but it doesn't exist.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> I don't care about other people's common sense.  I'm not talking about what you believe to be moral or immoral or what Joe Blow down the street beliefs.  I've got to use my own common sense, my own brain, to decide what actions I believe to be moral and immoral.  My brain tells me murder is bad and honesty is good.  I don't need a 2000 year old book to enlighten me with this knowledge.



This statement makes everything subjective, therefor you cant make an absolute claim about anything. So when you answer a question, dont assume another answer to that question is wrong because it doesnt agree with your subjective worldview. Everybody gets to make up their own worldview and it all gets to be the truth, is that what I am understanding?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Really?
> 
> Look, people choose to believe whatever they perceive to be most plausible.  Based on evidence (and lack of evidence) I believe there is no god.  Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and Christian beliefs are dead on accurate.  When I die and stand before God, at that point, why would I deserve to burn forever?  My biggest crime would be doubting the truth of some pretty far-fetched claims.  The dude beside me in line at the golden gates may have raped and murdered a child and then found Jesus in prison.  *He gets to go in while I burn forever?*  You believe this?  Really?





dexrusjak said:


> If it existed then obviously I would (as opposed to the alternative), but it doesn't exist.



So what exactly is your question in the above post? Why do you seem so upset about not getting in to a place that doesnt exist? Lets pretend it is true for a second, when you get there, you gonna be upset if you dont get in after making comments like that?


----------



## Achilles Return (Feb 11, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> What's your basis for declaring something barbaric?



Cop-out, deflection, denial. Let me know when you need help untwisting your arms behind that bible.


----------



## Achilles Return (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And who gets to decide that? If morals are subjective, that punishment may not be enough for me.
> 
> A person that dies without wanting to spend eternity with their creator, gets exactly what they wanted, why do you see that as such a horrible thing?



Please stop pretending that your god has "objective" morals, unless you're planning on going out and stoning some witches today.


----------



## Achilles Return (Feb 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So what exactly is your question in the above post? Why do you seem so upset about not getting in to a place that doesnt exist? Lets pretend it is true for a second, when you get there, you gonna be upset if you dont get in after making comments like that?



He's noting the absurdity of your religion's 'justice'. The christian murderer and rapist that converts on his deathbed is in heaven while national heros like Pat Tillman are being eternally tortured in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. It's beyond ridiculous.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Please stop pretending that your god has "objective" morals, unless you're planning on going out and stoning some witches today.



Explain to me what moral value is found in this sentence.

I threw rocks at you.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 11, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Cop-out, deflection, denial. Let me know when you need help untwisting your arms behind that bible.



It was a genuine question.  If you plan on answering it, go ahead.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 11, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> He's noting the absurdity of your religion's 'justice'. The christian murderer and rapist that converts on his deathbed is in heaven while national heros like Pat Tillman are being eternally tortured in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. It's beyond ridiculous.



Why did you send Mr. Tellman to He11?

And what is "ridiculous" about it? Give us a better plan.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 11, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Common sense.



Please explain.  "Just cause" isn't satisfying.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 11, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> What's your basis for declaring something barbaric?



Human sacrifice, tormenting doubters in a lake of fire for all eternity.......rather barbaric.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 11, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> What's your basis for declaring something barbaric?





stringmusic said:


> What doesnt make sense about it? A guy does something bad and then accepts Christ, dies with salvation from Christ. Another guy who does not believe in God, dies without the salvation from Christ, thus, both people end up in differing realities in the end.



For real? These are two totally different sins and you are telling me that one isnt worse than the other? The man that had doubt didnt harm anyone and rape and murder. He just had doubt on a 2000 year old story that isnt proven. This is why it doesnt make sense. Would if a man lived in a different part of the world and had never heard of Christ name? He spends his whole life not knowing anything about christianity because he wasnt taught it. Obviously he wouldnt be a believer, so I guess hes going to burn too? This is why it doesnt make sense. Why does he deserve to burn?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 11, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Human sacrifice, tormenting doubters in a lake of fire for all eternity.......rather barbaric.



Based upon what? Barbaric entails injustice. So, you tell me what is just and why.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 11, 2011)

I wish we were as smart and just as we think we are. Maybe we would not need a God then. It is hard to debate with individuals who "know" everything. Atheist's  ignorance and pride is sometimes worse than Christian's...lol


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 12, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I wish we were as smart and just as we think we are. Maybe we would not need a God then. It is hard to debate with individuals who "know" everything. Atheist's  ignorance and pride is sometimes worse than Christian's...lol



The deal is that right here at this moment, with this subject, we are not just talking with unbelievers.
We're talking to folks who have total distain for God and all the He represents.


----------



## woodchuck23 (Feb 12, 2011)

Now about "the book", do you believe everything you read from centuries ago? I like a good fiction, but this ain't even good! It was written by a bunch of woman-haters, and they all got together and said let's make up a bunch of rules and scary stories to get these other folks to go along with our way of thinking!


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 12, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The deal is that right here at this moment, with this subject, we are not just talking with unbelievers.
> We're talking to folks who have total distain for God and all the He represents.



They have disdain because they are weak and powerless against overcoming judgment at the end of their lives. It is human nature. They are "good" men so they don't have any thing to worry about Ronnie.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 12, 2011)

woodchuck23 said:


> Now about "the book", do you believe everything you read from centuries ago? I like a good fiction, but this ain't even good! It was written by a bunch of woman-haters, and they all got together and said let's make up a bunch of rules and scary stories to get these other folks to go along with our way of thinking!



Man you nailed it...why don't you try reading it again. This time try reading it with an open mind and heart.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 12, 2011)

woodchuck23 said:


> Now about "the book", do you believe everything you read from centuries ago? I like a good fiction, but this ain't even good! It was written by a bunch of woman-haters, and they all got together and said let's make up a bunch of rules and scary stories to get these other folks to go along with our way of thinking!



Judge for yourself after a read of the following:
*Facts for Skeptics of the New Testament*


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Feb 12, 2011)

No one can absolutely claim What all life Mysteries are about. They can only assume...???


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 12, 2011)

woodchuck23 said:


> It was written by a bunch of woman-haters, and they all got together and said let's make up a bunch of rules and scary stories to get these other folks to go along with our way of thinking!



Oh, please.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 12, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And what is "ridiculous" about it? Give us a better plan.



Gladly.

How about this?  Nobody burns for all of eternity.  

If I'm an infinitely wise and powerful god, I can easily punish my human creatures in perfect accordance to the severity of the crimes they committed in relation to all factors involved.  No problem.  My punishments would also be such as to bring about reform and learning rather than eternal punishment that serves no meaningful purpose.  Once reformed, I would welcome all into the abundant blessings of the paradise I have prepared for them.  

Also, while I'm at it, I would eradicate cancer and famine, make sure every child has a loving home, and do away with hurricanes, tornados, and tsunamis.  I would probably make every day Saturday and make every largemouth a 20-pounder.  

I would be a pretty awesome god.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 12, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Gladly.
> 
> How about this?  Nobody burns for all of eternity.
> 
> ...



Except everyone would hate you because their bass is not 21 pounds.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 12, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I wish we were as smart and just as we think we are. Maybe we would not need a God then. It is hard to debate with individuals who "know" everything. Atheist's  ignorance and pride is sometimes worse than Christian's...lol



In havent seen anyone on this forum claim to "know" anything but the christians. Im also guessing that you say ignorance because atheist dont believe the same thing you do? You have to remember, your religion is not proven, has alot of questions, and people all around will not always believe the same things you will. I personally dont claim to be atheist, but I do have a hard time believing most of the so called fairy tales of the bible. My other problem with christianity is how bloody its history is. More than just about any other religion. So nobody is showing there ignorance here, they are just stating there beliefs. Just like the christians are doing.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 12, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The deal is that right here at this moment, with this subject, we are not just talking with unbelievers.
> We're talking to folks who have total distain for God and all the He represents.



Absolutly not. Your dealing with people who dont believe the same thing you do. I have no distain for a god ( or multiple gods for that matter) i have a distain for people who try to explain to me there outlandish beliefs that make zero sense. A distain for people to claim "they know". Here is a fact....Nobody knows. At all.  For all we know, we are a molecule on someones pencil eraser.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 12, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Except everyone would hate you because their bass is not 21 pounds.



And he can't claim to be objectively good or holy. Those are pretty important traits.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 12, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> My other problem with christianity is how bloody its history is. More than just about any other religion. So nobody is showing there ignorance here, they are just stating there beliefs. Just like the christians are doing.



prove to me that you're not ignorant and substantiate your claim that Christianity's history is "bloodier than most".


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 12, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> prove to me that you're not ignorant and substantiate your claim that Christianity's history is "bloodier than most".



Open up a history book and read about the spanish inquisition. 14th and 15th century. If you dont know that christians murdered innocent people for heresy, then you absolutley have know idea about your own religion. You must be the "show up on sunday to make me feel better" type. Far from ignorant bro, do some research.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 12, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Open up a history book and read about the spanish inquisition. 14th and 15th century. If you dont know that christians murdered innocent people for heresy, then you absolutley have know idea about your own religion. You must be the "show up on sunday to make me feel better" type. Far from ignorant bro, do some research.



That's funny. Off topic, but you never told me wha would be just...remember?

You made a comparative statement about Christianity compared to most other religions. You've just talked about. The Spanish Inquisition. So, now you'll need to tell me about all the other religions and how their bloddiness compares. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt so do yourself a favor and stop with the a hominem tone. It'll strengthen your argument.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 12, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Open up a history book and read about the spanish inquisition. 14th and 15th century. If you dont know that christians murdered innocent people for heresy, then you absolutley have know idea about your own religion. You must be the "show up on sunday to make me feel better" type. Far from ignorant bro, do some research.



Have you met anyone who called them self something they were not? Example: "Calder Willingham is the best turkey caller in the world." I just called myself the best turkey caller in the world. Do i become the greatest because I claimed it? Come on dude. You got to do better the bloody christian bit is why you lack faith. 

I know that i don't have proof of the Judeo Christian God. But, i have faith the He is there and He sent his only son down to live as a man and die for me, even though he was blameless. I was in the same place you were a few years ago.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 12, 2011)

There is no argument to be had. Your faith has a bloody history. Therfore I don't need to do myself any favors. If you need comparison, the death toll the christians have made is larger than most. Not many other religions have decades of slaughter. In that case, there is no comparison. Why don't you do yourself a favor and get back with me when you accept that your religion killed innocent men and women for not believing the same thing that you believe today. All I'm saying is I have a problem with that.  It isn't such a religion of love. Not off your topic at all.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 12, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Have you met anyone who called them self something they were not? Example: "Calder Willingham is the best turkey caller in the world." I just called myself the best turkey caller in the world. Do i become the greatest because I claimed it? Come on dude. You got to do better the bloody christian bit is why you lack faith.
> 
> I know that i don't have proof of the Judeo Christian God. But, i have faith the He is there and He sent his only son down to live as a man and die for me, even though he was blameless. I was in the same place you were a few years ago.



Good. You just admitted it. It is called faith because that is what it is. Not fact. Nothing wrong with believing whatever you want. I choose not to because it doesn't make sense to me. I'm human, I think logically.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 12, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Good. You just admitted it. It is called faith because that is what it is. Not fact. Nothing wrong with believing whatever you want. I choose not to because it doesn't make sense to me. I'm human, I think logically.



Every christian you meet will tell you they have faith. You have faith in your beliefs too. There are things you believe that can not be proven. Do you have mate? Does he/she love you? Where is your proof? 

Now why don't you use some logic and answer my other paragraph?



Thanatos said:


> Have you met anyone who called them self something they were not? Example: "Calder Willingham is the best turkey caller in the world." I just called myself the best turkey caller in the world. Do i become the greatest because I claimed it? Come on dude. You got to do better the bloody christian bit is why you lack faith.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 12, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> There is no argument to be had. Your faith has a bloody history. Therfore I don't need to do myself any favors. If you need comparison, the death toll the christians have made is larger than most. Not many other religions have decades of slaughter. In that case, there is no comparison. Why don't you do yourself a favor and get back with me when you accept that your religion killed innocent men and women for not believing the same thing that you believe today. All I'm saying is I have a problem with that.  It isn't such a religion of love. Not off your topic at all.



That's a cop out. Eithe substantiate your comment or admit that your statement was ignorant.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 12, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Every christian you meet will tell you they have faith. You have faith in your beliefs too. There are things you believe that can not be proven. Do you have mate? Does he/she love you? Where is your proof?
> 
> Now why don't you use some logic and answer my other paragraph?



Umm. Ok. Maybe i am ignorant, because im not sure where your going with this analogy. My proof that my wife loves me is that she has spent over nine years putting up with my junk and has birthed three beautiful girls of mine. She has helped and encouraged me through ups and downs and we have built a pretty good life together. Jesus or god didnt have anything to do with it that im aware of. Im sure you have a great rebuttal for this, but again, im confused on what your trying to accomplish with this anaolgy.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 13, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Absolutly not. Your dealing with people who dont believe the same thing you do. I have no distain for a god ( or multiple gods for that matter) i have a distain for people who try to explain to me there outlandish beliefs that make zero sense. A distain for people to claim "they know". Here is a fact....Nobody knows. At all.  For all we know, we are a molecule on someones pencil eraser.



"The Gospel of Christ is foolishness to those who do not believe."

So here you are on a forum disagreeing with people that you just admitted that you don't know if they're correct or not.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

I disagree with it because it doesnt make sense.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> That's a cop out. Eithe substantiate your comment or admit that your statement was ignorant.



What would you like me to do? Would you like me to list every religion in the world and compare it to yours? Obviously, neither of us have the time to do that. Without going to a huge long detailed history lesson, which ones would you like me to compare? Hindus, Buhddists, Islamics? Any other religions you want to throw in there? What do you want to know? Be more specific. I cant show you a semesters worth of history over a computer in a simple response. Every religion has violence, still today. The difference is burning people at the stake for not converting. Killing for centuries.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 13, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> The difference is burning people at the stake for not converting. Killing for centuries.



Quite true. HISTORICAL "Christianity" has heaps of events that make my skin crawl.  But let me make it clear to you and all readers that the once and for all act of a crucified Lord took the sword out of the hands of every redeemed believer.  We can hash out the "who then is a true believer" until the cows come home.  We probably do it more on these forums than anywhere else I've seen. I've no doubt that such talk back and forth has no value to searching hearts. What has value has to do with what the heart goes through after realizing that it was that one event on the cross that made the bridge between fallen man and a holy God.  The Lord Himself took on the violence of man to finally deal a death blow to sin and its eternal consequences. Christs blood was shed so we would not have to do likewise. 

That is the main difference between true, biblical Christianity and any other faith or religion out there.  

Not one other faith has a Lord who is now risen from the dead.  

Not one other faith has a plan to forgive man his sins.  

Not one other faith has a firm hope of life after death.

And not one other faith gives the assurance that a Savior walks with us daily, in all of life’s' failures and joys, sins and reconciliations.

*Hebrews 13:5*
b: For He Himself has said,  “I will never *leave* you *nor* *forsake* you.”


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 13, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> What would you like me to do? Would you like me to list every religion in the world and compare it to yours? Obviously, neither of us have the time to do that. Without going to a huge long detailed history lesson, which ones would you like me to compare? Hindus, Buhddists, Islamics? Any other religions you want to throw in there? What do you want to know? Be more specific. I cant show you a semesters worth of history over a computer in a simple response. Every religion has violence, still today. The difference is burning people at the stake for not converting. Killing for centuries.



Tell me, is it only Christianity that nauseates you and gives you this despicable attitude towards us and every thing we say, or do you feel that way towards all beliefs?
Since I'm a Christian, do you automatically believe I'm a fruit cake that is gullible, shallowminded and uneducated?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 13, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> What would you like me to do? Would you like me to list every religion in the world and compare it to yours? Obviously, neither of us have the time to do that. Without going to a huge long detailed history lesson, which ones would you like me to compare? Hindus, Buhddists, Islamics? Any other religions you want to throw in there? What do you want to know? Be more specific. I cant show you a semesters worth of history over a computer in a simple response.



you've already made the comparison. You said Christianity has a bloodier past than most other religions. I'm just asking you to substantiate that claim. If you can't, that's fine, but you shouldn't have said it in the first place if you can't defend your statement.

This matters because you said this is one of the things that turns you off. So, it's important that your statement be true. If it's not true, it shows that you have made a value judgment based on an unfounded assumption. Your inability to give even broad comparisons certainly makes your assumption look unfounded.

Oh, and if someone told you they gave you a history of world religions in a semester, they lied to you.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 13, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Just so I'm clear, are you saying that in god's eyes, all sins are equal?
> 
> Sin A - six year old boy stealing a candy bar
> Sin B - gangmember murdering a child in a drive-by shooting
> ...



Since all sin is a violation of God's will, that is exactly what the Bible says...... all equal in placing man in opposition to God, all worthy of eternal separation from God.



vowell462 said:


> Open up a history book and read about the spanish inquisition. 14th and 15th century. If you dont know that christians murdered innocent people for heresy, then you absolutley have know idea about your own religion. You must be the "show up on sunday to make me feel better" type. Far from ignorant bro, do some research.





 "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths;  18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000  deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other  actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents  (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms  (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)." Correction: According to a correction published by the _Journal_  on January 19, 2005, "On page 1240, in Table 2, '400,000 (16.6)' deaths  for 'poor diet and physical inactivity' in 2000 should be '365,000  (15.2).' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the  body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990  data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol  consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data,  16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol  consumption and motor vehicle death categories."




 Source: 
Mokdad,  Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie  L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States,  2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, (March 10, 2004),  G225 Vol. 291, No. 10, p. 1238, 1240.
http://proxy.baremetal.com/csdp.org/research/1238.pdf
Source for Correction: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.






The historian Hernando del Pulgar,  contemporary of Ferdinand and Isabella, estimated that the Inquisition  had burned at the stake 2,000 people and reconciled another 15,000 by  1490 (just one decade after the Inquisition began).<sup id="cite_ref-75" class="reference">[76]</sup>
 Modern historians have begun to study the documentary records of the  Inquisition. The archives of the Suprema, today held by the National  Historical Archive of Spain (Archivo Histórico Nacional), conserves the  annual relations of all processes between 1540 and 1700. This material  provides information on about 44,674 judgements, the latter studied by  Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. These 44,674 cases include 826  executions _in persona_ and 778 _in effigie_. This material, however, is far from being complete — for example, the tribunal of Cuenca is entirely omitted, because no _relaciones de causas_  from this tribunal has been found, and significant gaps concern some  other tribunals (e.g. Valladolid). Many more cases not reported to  Suprema are known from the other sources (e.g. no _relaciones de causas_  from Cuenca has been found, but its original records has been  preserved), but were not included in Contreras-Hennigsen's statistics  for the methodological reasons.<sup id="cite_ref-76" class="reference">[77]</sup> William Monter estimates 1000 executions between 1530–1630 and 250 between 1630–1730.<sup id="cite_ref-77" class="reference">[78]</sup>
 The archives of the Suprema only provide information surrounding the  processes prior to 1560. To study the processes themselves, it is  necessary to examine the archives of the local tribunals; however, the  majority have been lost to the devastation of war, the ravages of time  or other events. Pierre Dedieu has studied those of Toledo, where 12,000  were judged for offences related to heresy.<sup id="cite_ref-78" class="reference">[79]</sup> Ricardo García Cárcel has analyzed those of the tribunal of Valencia.<sup id="cite_ref-79" class="reference">[80]</sup>  These authors' investigations find that the Inquisition was most active  in the period between 1480 and 1530, and that during this period the  percentage condemned to death was much more significant than in the  years studied by Henningsen and Contreras. Henry Kamen gives the number  of about 2,000 executions _in persona_ in the whole Spain up to 1530.<sup id="cite_ref-80" class="reference">[81]</sup>
García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the  Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000. Applying  the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560–1700 —  about 2% — the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death.  Nevertheless, very probably this total should be raised keeping in mind  the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of  Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that the total would be  between 3,000 and 5,000 executed.



75  Kamen, _Spanish Inquisition,_ p. 150

76  Cited in Kamen _op. cit._, p. 62.

77  For full account see: Gustav Henningsen, _The Database of the Spanish Inquisition. The relaciones de causas project revisited_, in: Heinz Mohnhaupt, Dieter Simon, _Vorträge zur Justizforschung_, Vittorio Klostermann, 1992, pp. 43-85

78  W. Monter, _Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily_, Cambridge 2003, p. 53

79   Jean-Pierre Dedieu, _Los Cuatro Tiempos_, in Bartolomé Benassar, _Inquisición Española: poder político y control social_, pp. 15-39.


80   Ricardo García Cárcel, _Orígenes de la Inquisición Española. El Tribunal de Valencia, 1478-1530._ Barcelona, 1976.

81   H. Kamen, _Inkwizycja HiszpaÅ„ska_, Warszawa 2005, p. 62; and H. Rawlings, _The Spanish Inquisition_, Blackwell Publishing 2004, p. 15


Hmmmmmm???  

Muslims have killed in excess of 5000 in a single day in some African countries in recent years.

The one hundred and forty year record of the Spanish Inquisition is approx. 5000 total body count, 36 per YEAR, 3 per MONTH, or less than 1 per WEEK. 

And America sacrificed 16,000 + in vehicle crashes during the year 2000 alone, to the god of beverage alcohol. That is over 320 per week!!!

Yep, those blood thirsty Christians are the worst.

Uninformed is putting it mildly!


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 13, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Since all sin is a violation of God's will, that is exactly what the Bible says...... all equal in placing man in opposition to God, all worthy of eternal separation from God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is some of the best OWNAGE i've seen in awhile. Thanks GT.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Feb 13, 2011)

It amazes Me how Christian's flock too this site. I guess they are amazed that people can think for there selves. Without having dogma crammed down there throat ??


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 13, 2011)

laskerknight said:


> It amazes Me how Christian's flock too this site. I guess they are amazed that people can think for there selves. Without having dogma crammed down there throat ??



Nothing to add huh?

 Does it really amaze you? A sports forum in Georgia has a bunch of Christians who don't let baseless claims go unchallenged? Why in the world would that amaze you?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 13, 2011)

laskerknight said:


> It amazes Me how Christian's flock too this site. *I guess they are amazed that people can think for there selves.* Without having dogma crammed down there throat ??





Can you tell us how to think for ourselves? Pleeeeaaaaasssseeee  

I've really been having a hard time lately thinking for myself, I would really like for you to help all of us out and give us your thoughts on the correct way to think.


----------



## zebco33 (Feb 13, 2011)

I have been lurking for several weeks on this board and to tell the truth I am a bit uneasy about the tone and tenor of the discussion...it is hard to hear the inflection in some of the post and even more difficult to be right about what someone meant when saying this and that.  but i will tell you that I think the number of people lead to the foot of the cross by witty repartee and sarcasm is very few at best.
just for consideration, wouldn't Christ be better served sounding the alarm as Isaiah put it rather than the sword of conversion that many of our friend like to quote when talking about the history of blood associated with Christianity?  I look forward to joining the discussion and i hope have something meaningful to add but I don't see anyone rejecting me because it isn't me I am preaching but rejecting Christ because that is who I am speaking of, looking forward to the discussion and remember I do not take it personally unless you want to be personal- I am trying to explain to others the love and rest I have found in a seemingly loveless and hopeless world.


----------



## JFS (Feb 13, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> That is some of the best OWNAGE i've seen in awhile. Thanks GT.





It was a goofy response.  First, violence wasn't limited to the Inquisition, so why that took a dozen lines to discuss is a mystery.  Second, why are we talking about alcohol at all?  Third, not all violence committed by people of a certain faith is a religious crime, much of it is political.

If you want to quibble over the death count, at least start with the big nuts, like oh, say, the Crusades, then work your way down the list:  http://articles.exchristian.net/2002/10/how-many-people-have-been-killed-by.php


----------



## 1handkneehigh (Feb 13, 2011)

laskerknight said:


> It amazes Me how Christian's flock too this site. I guess they are amazed that people can think for there selves. Without having dogma crammed down there throat ??



I totally agree.  I thought this site is setup for nonbelievers to vent their frustations from christians trying to force their beliefs upon us.  I believe if the christians have their ways they would declare me a lucifer worshipper and burn me at the stake.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 13, 2011)

zebco33 said:


> I have been lurking for several weeks on this board and to tell the truth I am a bit uneasy about the tone and tenor of the discussion...it is hard to hear the inflection in some of the post and even more difficult to be right about what someone meant when saying this and that.  but i will tell you that I think the number of people lead to the foot of the cross by witty repartee and sarcasm is very few at best.
> just for consideration, wouldn't Christ be better served sounding the alarm as Isaiah put it rather than the sword of conversion that many of our friend like to quote when talking about the history of blood associated with Christianity?  I look forward to joining the discussion and i hope have something meaningful to add but I don't see anyone rejecting me because it isn't me I am preaching but rejecting Christ because that is who I am speaking of, looking forward to the discussion and remember I do not take it personally unless you want to be personal- I am trying to explain to others the love and rest I have found in a seemingly loveless and hopeless world.



I understand what your saying. I have been on these forums for awhile and I do you sarcasm sometimes. After you debate the same topic for years on this forum you use different types of tools to communicate a point you have been making for years.


----------



## 1handkneehigh (Feb 13, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> Nothing to add huh?
> 
> Does it really amaze you? A sports forum in Georgia has a bunch of Christians who don't let baseless claims go unchallenged? Why in the world would that amaze you?



What loving the outdoors got to do with what your beliefs?  I thought they got a forum for just christians.  Maybe they need to setup a forum for muslims and thousand other religions so you all can duke it out.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Tell me, is it only Christianity that nauseates you and gives you this despicable attitude towards us and every thing we say, or do you feel that way towards all beliefs?
> Since I'm a Christian, do you automatically believe I'm a fruit cake that is gullible, shallowminded and uneducated?



No. I do not think you are shallow minded, gullible, or uneducated at all. I dont even know you, so why would I make these claims? I do however think you believe what you were taught, which again, is not an insult.
And on the other question, no. Most religions make me feel uneasy but its the christians on this forum that  are refering to me as "ignorant" so of course Im a little on the defense right now.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 13, 2011)

JFS said:


> It was a goofy response.  First, violence wasn't limited to the Inquisition, so why that took a dozen lines to discuss is a mystery.  Second, why are we talking about alcohol at all?  Third, not all violence committed by people of a certain faith is a religious crime, much of it is political.
> 
> If you want to quibble over the death count, at least start with the big nuts, like oh, say, the Crusades, then work your way down the list:  http://articles.exchristian.net/2002/10/how-many-people-have-been-killed-by.php



The problem here is that people do not step back and use simple logic to think that maybe the men that killed others in the name of Christ (wither it be by the sword, or on a burning stake) WERE NOT CHRISTIANS TO BEGIN WITH!!! There are a lot of acts done in the name of God that are nothing more than delusional, hypocritical, pharasies who are not doing the work of God at all.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 13, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> No. I do not think you are shallow minded, gullible, or uneducated at all. I dont even know you, so why would I make these claims? I do however think you believe what you were taught, which again, is not an insult.
> And on the other question, no. Most religions make me feel uneasy but its the christians on this forum that  are refering to me as "ignorant" so of course Im a little on the defense right now.



My point is that you are ignorant and so am I. I was having some of your issues with Christianity a couple of years ago. The big difference between you and I is that I know I am small and ignorant relative to the knowledge to be had in this world, and most importantly in this universe.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> My point is that you are ignorant and so am I. I was having some of your issues with Christianity a couple of years ago. The big difference between you and I is that I know I am small and ignorant relative to the knowledge to be had in this world, and most importantly in this universe.



Couldnt agree more. I agree that I am small and dont have the answers. Never said I was bigger than anyone. And dont believe that anyone else is either.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Since all sin is a violation of God's will, that is exactly what the Bible says...... all equal in placing man in opposition to God, all worthy of eternal separation from God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure what you googled here, but I think you may be way off. During The Inquisition,approximatley 31,912 heretics wre burned at the stake. Another 17,659 were burned in effigy. However, there were 291,450 that reconciled in The Inquisition.


Please explain to me what alcohol and tobacco have to do with this discussion? Im confused.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Since all sin is a violation of God's will, that is exactly what the Bible says...... all equal in placing man in opposition to God, all worthy of eternal separation from God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, and can you explain to me about the genecide of 300,000 muslims in Bosnia and the rape of 100,000 muslim women by christian Serbs in recent history? Or how about the 900,000 Rwandans death witnessed in a country that is 90% christian? justb wondering, since this is a numbers game.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 13, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Oh, and can you explain to me about the genecide of 300,000 muslims in Bosnia and the rape of 100,000 muslim women by christian Serbs in recent history? Or how about the 900,000 Rwandans death witnessed in a country that is 90% christian? justb wondering, since this is a numbers game.



Seriously...if I tell you that I am a computer genius and then i do not know where the power button on computers are can i be called a computer genius??? What is so hard to understand about non Christians performing acts in the name of Christianity? Do you not grasp this because it defeats your theory of mass Christian violence? 

I struggle with the same thoughts you have, but I did my due diligence and found the evidence and the acts of God to be so overwhelming it is hard to ignore. You said the acts of your wife show you that she loves you. If you look around and take the time to learn the physics and science behind our existence not only where we are, but when we are in the universe you will see that we have many acts from God that shows us we are here on purpose. I have several books I could send you if you are interested. I only want people to be objective and find the truth.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> The problem here is that people do not step back and use simple logic to think that maybe the men that killed others in the name of Christ (wither it be by the sword, or on a burning stake) WERE NOT CHRISTIANS TO BEGIN WITH!!! There are a lot of acts done in the name of God that are nothing more than delusional, hypocritical, pharasies who are not doing the work of God at all.



So they can kill in the name of Christ and not be christians? Delusional? for decades? Trust me, im not trying to make you look dumb like mr. lightning tries to do with me, im trying to understand the concept.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Seriously...if I tell you that I am a computer genius and then i do not know where the power button on computers are can i be called a computer genius??? What is so hard to understand about non Christians performing acts in the name of Christianity? Do you not grasp this because it defeats your theory of mass Christian violence?
> 
> I struggle with the same thoughts you have, but I did my due diligence and found the evidence and the acts of God to be so overwhelming it is hard to ignore. You said the acts of your wife show you that she loves you. If you look around and take the time to learn the physics and science behind our existence not only where we are, but when we are in the universe you will see that we have many acts from God that shows us we are here on purpose. I have several books I could send you if you are interested. I only want people to be objective and find the truth.



No. It doesnt defeat it at all. So are you saying that you are a different christian than them? Believe me, ive spent a long time as a man of faith. Ive taken the look around. And still there is no definate answer. What is your purpose that god has given you? Im interested to know, because he hasnt told me one yet. Ill be glad to read whatever you want to send (as long as there is no anthrax) if youll let me send you a few.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 13, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> So they can kill in the name of Christ and not be christians? Delusional? for decades? Trust me, im not trying to make you look dumb like mr. lightning tries to do with me, im trying to understand the concept.



You have seen the commercial's for televangelist asking people for money, and the more they send the more God will forgive them? The only thing more crazy than these people are the people who actually SEND THEM MONEY. All this is done in God's name. All that is happening is a powerful or coercive person taking advantage of weak minded person. The exact same way the Pope or a king could direct masses of soldiers to "earn" the grace of God (buying and selling what was referred to as indulgences by the catholic church) by taking back the Holy Land. This led Martin Luther to begin the protestant revolution, or the Reformation.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> You have seen the commercial's for televangelist asking people for money, and the more they send the more God will forgive them? The only thing more crazy than these people are the people who actually SEND THEM MONEY. All this is done in God's name. All that is happening is a powerful or coercive person taking advantage of weak minded person. The exact same way the Pope or a king could direct masses of soldiers to "earn" the grace of God (buying and selling what was referred to as indulgences by the catholic church) by taking back the Holy Land. This led Martin Luther to begin the protestant revolution, or the Reformation.



fair enough. So what makes you a christian? Why do you personally believe so much? Has something happened to you? Did you witness something unexpainable? Did something happen that was a miracle in which has no logical explanation to you? Just curious to know.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 13, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Trust me, im not trying to make you look dumb like mr. lightning tries to do with me, im trying to understand the concept.



you're assuming motives...always tricky. I have no I terest in making you look dumb (despite your insinuation that I was uninformed about history). You made a very strong statement and I asked you to substantiate it. You have still failed to address it, so I am left to think you either can't or you don't care.

My hope is that you will look a little deeper into these matters from a wider variety of sources. I've spent tireless hours wrestling with Bertrand Russell, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, ect. The oft repeated notion that Christians are illogical or uninformed is just a silly diversion for those who don't want to really engage the arguments.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 13, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> you're assuming motives...always tricky. I have no I terest in making you look dumb (despite your insinuation that I was uninformed about history). You made a very strong statement and I asked you to substantiate it. You have still failed to address it, so I am left to think you either can't or you don't care.
> 
> My hope is that you will look a little deeper into these matters from a wider variety of sources. I've spent tireless hours wrestling with Bertrand Russell, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, ect. The oft repeated notion that Christians are illogical or uninformed is just a silly diversion for those who don't want to really engage the arguments.



To be honest, I think ive substantiated enough. I dont come here to insult anyones intelligence, I simply come here to learn why people believe what they do. If you want me to substantiate further, I will. But you and I both know that will take up alot of forum room.

Now, what "argument" is there? There isnt one. Because no one has the answers. Ive spent countless years wearing all my britches out on a church pew. In present years(after awakening) Ive spent countless hours searching for answers. Now, The reality is this. I dont know how our origin came to be, and guess what, neither do you or anyone else.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Feb 13, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Muslims have killed in excess of 5000 in a single day in some African countries in recent years.



In what incident(s)?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 14, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> The problem here is that people do not step back and use simple logic to think that maybe the men that killed others in the name of Christ (wither it be by the sword, or on a burning stake) WERE NOT CHRISTIANS TO BEGIN WITH!!! There are a lot of acts done in the name of God that are nothing more than delusional, hypocritical, pharasies who are not doing the work of God at all.



I go a step further on this issue.  I say that NO man has ever been asked by God to kill another man for God.  God has demonstrated his ability to kill men without any assistance from man.  It could be a great flood, a plague, all the first-born dying in their sleep, a parted sea engulfing an army, two cities destroyed by fire, a woman turned to salt, or numerous other examples of God smiting someone.  

I do not believe that a specific scripture came from God, as opposed to being from man, if that particular scripture is written by a man who says that God spoke directly to him and told him to kill a whole lot of other people for the glory of God.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I go a step further on this issue.  I say that NO man has ever been asked by God to kill another man for God.  God has demonstrated his ability to kill men without any assistance from man.  It could be a great flood, a plague, all the first-born dying in their sleep, a parted sea engulfing an army, two cities destroyed by fire, a woman turned to salt, or numerous other examples of God smiting someone.
> 
> I do not believe that a specific scripture came from God, as opposed to being from man, if that particular scripture is written by a man who says that God spoke directly to him and told him to kill a whole lot of other people for the glory of God.


I concur. So why did they do it? This was the way people believed in spreading the word at the time. So they lived thier whole life believing in christ, so what happened when they died? Were they sent to hail when they got to the pearly gates? In thier eyes, they didnt know they were sinning. So were they hit with a big "no" when they got there? How can you repent for sin if you didnt know you were sinning? Keep in mind the undeserved victims are still burning for all eternity. Hardly seems fair.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> I concur. So why did they do it? This was the way people believed in spreading the word at the time. So they lived thier whole life believing in christ, so what happened when they died? Were they sent to hail when they got to the pearly gates? In thier eyes, they didnt know they were sinning. So were they hit with a big "no" when they got there? How can you repent for sin if you didnt know you were sinning? Keep in mind the undeserved victims are still burning for all eternity. Hardly seems fair.



I think the "Christian" answer is that it doesn't matter if you know you're sinning.  All that matters is if you accept Jesus as your savior.  There's only one route to heaven.  If you utilize that "correct" route to heaven, it doesn't matter how good or bad your life has been.

Take for example the life of Mohandes Gandhi.  He consistently practiced compassion, honesty, and the Golden Rule throughout his life.  His spiritual leadership throughout the Indian independence movement inspired movements for civil rights across the world.  He was Hindu.

Take for example the life of Shirin Ebadi.  As an Iranian human rights activist, she became the first female Muslim to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  As a lawyer, she utilized peaceful methods to gain human rights for women and children, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and progressive changes to family laws.

Both Gandhi and Ebadi were devoutly religious and stayed true to their faith through extreme adversity.  They were continually oppressed, threatened, and imprisoned on numerous occasions.  

The "Christian" answer is that they are not welcome in heaven because they didn't utilize the correct route.

However, a death row inmate who accepts Christ just prior to execution, will be dining with Christ in heaven that very same day.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I go a step further on this issue.  I say that NO man has ever been asked by God to kill another man for God.  God has demonstrated his ability to kill men without any assistance from man.  It could be a great flood, a plague, all the first-born dying in their sleep, a parted sea engulfing an army, two cities destroyed by fire, a woman turned to salt, or numerous other examples of God smiting someone.
> 
> I do not believe that a specific scripture came from God, as opposed to being from man, if that particular scripture is written by a man who says that God spoke directly to him and told him to kill a whole lot of other people for the glory of God.



How do you determine what Scripture is valid?  Is it only those that you happen to feel good about?


----------



## JFS (Feb 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> All that matters is if you accept Jesus as your savior.



Since I'm not a member of the club I can't really comment on club rules, but it always seemed a shame to me there wasn't more emphasis on the sheep and the goats parable.  


http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mt25.31-46


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> How do you determine what Scripture is valid?  Is it only those that you happen to feel good about?



I haven't figured out an easy answer to that.  I look at numerous things, like the author of the scripture, the situation the author was in during that time period, the social pressures at that time, possible motivating factors behind the author's actions.  I look for the overall principles being expressed and try to determine if those principles are consistent with the principles expressed in other areas of the Bible.  I look for changes in the rules or changes in overall principles, especially when those changes directly correspond with cultural changes in society.  I look at the overall picture being presented of God throughout the Bible and take a second look at the things that don't seem to fit into that picture.  

As far as me picking the parts that I feel good about, I think that the opposite is closer to the truth.  Most of the parts of the Bible that I believe were authored by man, served man and his objectives and values at the time.  If man doesn't like what is written, I believe that might be a better sign that it didn't come from man.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I haven't figured out an easy answer to that.  I look at numerous things, like the author of the scripture, the situation the author was in during that time period, the social pressures at that time, possible motivating factors behind the author's actions.  I look for the overall principles being expressed and try to determine if those principles are consistent with the principles expressed in other areas of the Bible.  I look for changes in the rules or changes in overall principles, especially when those changes directly correspond with cultural changes in society.  I look at the overall picture being presented of God throughout the Bible and take a second look at the things that don't seem to fit into that picture.
> 
> As far as me picking the parts that I feel good about, I think that the opposite is closer to the truth.  Most of the parts of the Bible that I believe were authored by man, served man and his objectives and values at the time.  If man doesn't like what is written, I believe that might be a better sign that it didn't come from man.



So, what do you make of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?  If God never kills or calls people to kill, don't you have to throw out a BUNCH of the OT?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> So, what do you make of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?  If God never kills or calls people to kill, don't you have to throw out a BUNCH of the OT?



"All scripture being inspired by God" is dependent upon what we define as "scripture".  When 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written, exactly how many books were included in the Authorized King James Version Bible?  The KJV Bible didn't exist back then, so what is the definition of "scripture"?  Do you consider the Shepherd of Hermas to be scripture?  Do you consider the First Letter of Clement to be scripture?  How about the Didache?  Those books were considered scripture until they were removed by the Laodocia Council in 363 AD, however the 14 books of the Apocryphia were retained and were included in the 1611 Authorized King James Version until the late 1800's when they were removed. 

As far as throwing out a whole bunch of the Old Testament, no I don't think you have to throw it out.  It really doesn't diminish the message of the OT to read it as "Moses said to do something" as opposed to "God said to do it".  In fact, if you read it that way, it portrays God as being much more loving and just, and more importantly much more consistent.  If read that way, God doesn't change the rules as time progresses and doesn't change his mind about social issues.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> "All scripture being inspired by God" is dependent upon what we define as "scripture".  When 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written, exactly how many books were included in the Authorized King James Version Bible?  The KJV Bible didn't exist back then, so what is the definition of "scripture"?  Do you consider the Shepherd of Hermas to be scripture?  Do you consider the First Letter of Clement to be scripture?  How about the Didache?  Those books were considered scripture until they were removed by the Laodocia Council in 363 AD, however the 14 books of the Apocryphia were retained and were included in the 1611 Authorized King James Version until the late 1800's when they were removed.
> 
> As far as throwing out a whole bunch of the Old Testament, no I don't think you have to throw it out.  It really doesn't diminish the message of the OT to read it as "Moses said to do something" as opposed to "God said to do it".  In fact, if you read it that way, it portrays God as being much more loving and just, and more importantly much more consistent.  If read that way, God doesn't change the rules as time progresses and doesn't change his mind about social issues.



I think you misunderstand the cannon.  The cannon did not make anything Scripture, it just recognized it for what it was using three criteria: 1. Apostolic authority (why Paul's letters and the rest of the NT was accepted by the Church upon receiving it (immediately)) 2. General acceptance (plays into #1) and 3. Is not contrary to other Scripture.

The OT was recognized as Scripture at the time of Paul's letter to Timothy and Paul's writings as well as anything written by an apostle or someone with a very close tie to an apostle (like Luke).  Revelation wasn't written yet, but that doesn't mean that Paul would've precluded writings which met the criteria of inspiration.

I'm not concerned with the KJV, but with the Greek NT and the Hebrew Bible...

And, it certainly diminishes the OT when Moses is outright lying if he says "God has said..." when God hasn't.  The entire text is suspect under your system.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> I think you misunderstand the cannon.  The cannon did not make anything Scripture, it just recognized it for what it was using three criteria: 1. Apostolic authority (why Paul's letters and the rest of the NT was accepted by the Church upon receiving it (immediately)) 2. General acceptance (plays into #1) and 3. Is not contrary to other Scripture.
> 
> The OT was recognized as Scripture at the time of Paul's letter to Timothy and Paul's writings as well as anything written by an apostle or someone with a very close tie to an apostle (like Luke).  Revelation wasn't written yet, but that doesn't mean that Paul would've precluded writings which met the criteria of inspiration.
> 
> ...



The criteria for acceptance left a rather large margin for error.  If it was "widely accepted" means widely accepted by man.  Another word for this is "popular".  And if it supports "true doctrine" means if it supports what the church says is true doctrine.  If it supports the principles that the church already has in place, then they'll keep it.  They had the power to choose what supported their position and exclude anything that did not support their position.  Like I said in another thread; this is like having the power to write and amend the rules of a game in the middle of the game to support your current position.  The possible error here is that the scriptures were governed by the church before the church was governed by the scriptures.

The reason I referred to the KJV is because thats the one I'm most familiar with and I made the incorrect assumption that you used it also.  Plus, there are folks on this forum that believe that if its not in the KJV then its not scripture.

Do you honestly believe that the laws given to the Isrealites came directly from God?  I'll address those laws more if you do.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 15, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> fair enough. So what makes you a christian? Why do you personally believe so much? Has something happened to you? Did you witness something unexpainable? Did something happen that was a miracle in which has no logical explanation to you? Just curious to know.



I had no single magic, desperate moment to go through to convert to Christianity, but dont get me wrong, looking back I can see the hand of God in many situations in my life. Anyway, I was raised by baptist. We were in church every Sunday. As I grew older I started to rebel and not have the faith of my youth. The pinnacle of my unbelief was in college. Right when I was going to graduate I started reading the Bible and asked God to present himself if he was there. I read the new testament over the next few weeks and it moved me. Nothing dramatic, but I felt like I was missing something. Trying to be objective I started digging into different books to make sure these feelings were true. After reading and debating over the years I find my perspective changed. Now I ask "How can you not believe?" rather than ask, "How can you believe?"


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 15, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I had no single magic, desperate moment to go through to convert to Christianity, but dont get me wrong, looking back I can see the hand of God in many situations in my life. Anyway, I was raised by baptist. We were in church every Sunday. As I grew older I started to rebel and not have the faith of my youth. The pinnacle of my unbelief was in college. Right when I was going to graduate I started reading the Bible and asked God to present himself if he was there. I read the new testament over the next few weeks and it moved me. Nothing dramatic, but I felt like I was missing something. Trying to be objective I started digging into different books to make sure these feelings were true. After reading and debating over the years I find my perspective changed. Now I ask "How can you not believe?" rather than ask, "How can you believe?"



Honestly, just too much doubt in alot of the stories. As many have pointed out, alot of fairy tales that make it unbelievable. A little to much controversy over the story.

Let me explain to you that I have no intention of telling you you are wrong about your beliefs.( even though it may seem like it in some of my posts) I simply dont get the concept and am constantly trying to learn why people ( of all faiths) believe what they do. So far, ive had no concrete evidence of why, and I realize I probably wont. 

As for christianity, I cant help but get past the history. I understand there are answers for this by believers but none so far have been good enough for me.  I dont have any answers or too much belief. I have theories, which are just that, but I know they are theories and I dont trust them.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 15, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Honestly, just too much doubt in alot of the stories. As many have pointed out, alot of fairy tales that make it unbelievable. A little to much controversy over the story.
> 
> Let me explain to you that I have no intention of telling you you are wrong about your beliefs.( even though it may seem like it in some of my posts) I simply dont get the concept and am constantly trying to learn why people ( of all faiths) believe what they do. So far, ive had no concrete evidence of why, and I realize I probably wont.
> 
> As for christianity, I cant help but get past the history. I understand there are answers for this by believers but none so far have been good enough for me.  I dont have any answers or too much belief. I have theories, which are just that, but I know they are theories and I dont trust them.



Again, most of these doubts can be overcome with some due diligence and research, but if don't care enough to do the research then of coarse nothing will change in your mind. If the knowledge your perception is based stays the same you will never find the truth to your questions.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 15, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Again, most of these doubts can be overcome with some due diligence and research, but if don't care enough to do the research then of coarse nothing will change in your mind. If the knowledge your perception is based stays the same you will never find the truth to your questions.



Trust me, ive done the research and continue to do so. Nothing has changed my mind because I have nothing to change....yet.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you honestly believe that the laws given to the Isrealites came directly from God?



Absolutely.


----------



## JFS (Feb 16, 2011)

There's nothing god hates more than shrimp wrapped in bacon.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 16, 2011)

JFS said:


> There's nothing god hates more than shrimp wrapped in bacon.



I would say God hates when there is no difference between His people and everybody else. When those people were the Nation of Israel, the ceremonial cleanliness laws helped to ensure that God's people 1. were set apart and 2. understood the cost of holiness.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 17, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> Absolutely.



I'm sorry for the delay.  I've been busy.  It's difficult to decide where to start.

Why don't we start with Leviticus 14:1-7


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 17, 2011)

What about it?


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 18, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> How do you determine what Scripture is valid?  Is it only those that you happen to feel good about?



Judging by which scriptures Christians claim are valid and which aren't, that appears to be the case.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 18, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> I would say God hates when there is no difference between His people and everybody else. When those people were the Nation of Israel, the ceremonial cleanliness laws helped to ensure that God's people 1. were set apart and 2. understood the cost of holiness.



And what better place to create that difference than genital mutilation and forbidding pork and shellfish. You'd think an all knowing God might start with setting them apart by banning slavery.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> What about it?



I guess it would make more sense to begin with the intended TERM of the laws relayed by Moses.  My position is that Moses clearly stated that these laws were to be followed by Israel (sometimes expressed as Aaron's descendants and sometimes including foreigners living among them) FOREVER.  

Several scriptures use some combination of the following words or phrases regarding these laws:
"permanent law"
"forever"
"for your descendants to be kept from generation to generation"
"this is a permanent law for you, and it must be kept by all future generations"

Examples of scriptures using such terminology are:
Exodus 12:17
Exodus 12:24
Exodus 27:21
Exodus 28:43
Exodus 29:9
Exodus 29:28
Exodus 29:42
Exodus 30:8
Exodus 30:10
Exodus 30:21
Exodus 30:31
Exodus 31:13
Exodus 31:17
Leviticus 3:17
Leviticus 7:36
Leviticus 10:9
Leviticus 10:15
Leviticus 11:11
Leviticus 16:29
Leviticus 17:7
Leviticus 23:14
Leviticus 23:21
Leviticus 23:31
Leviticus 23:41
Leviticus 24:3
Numbers 15:21
Numbers 15:38
Numbers 18:23
Numbers 19:21
Numbers 35:29
Deuteronomy 12:32
Deuteronomy 17:18-20
Deuteronomy 29:15

I can find no scripture in the first 5 books of the Old Testament that expresses any other span than forever.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> And what better place to create that difference than genital mutilation and forbidding pork and shellfish. You'd think an all knowing God might start with setting them apart by banning slavery.



Duly noted that you think you'd make a better God than the God of the Bible...but that's just an opinion, so it doesn't carry much weight with me.

Any plans to answer my question asked oh so long ago?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 21, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I guess it would make more sense to begin with the intended TERM of the laws relayed by Moses.  My position is that Moses clearly stated that these laws were to be followed by Israel (sometimes expressed as Aaron's descendants and sometimes including foreigners living among them) FOREVER...
> 
> I can find no scripture in the first 5 books of the Old Testament that expresses any other span than forever.



Interesting.  I've been busy and, honestly, I don't have a satisfactory answer off the top of my head.  I will look into it (as you've posed it) as time allows.

I will say, however, that whether or not Christians adhere to the OT is a separate issue than who wrote the law.  What I mean is, you could show that I am inconsistent or that Christendom is inconsistent, but that isn't really an argument against divine authorship.  Does that make sense.

As for whether or not the laws are spelled out as temporary, that would be an argument from silence which is not very compelling...but worth noting.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 21, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> Duly noted that you think you'd make a better God than the God of the Bible...but that's just an opinion, so it doesn't carry much weight with me.
> 
> Any plans to answer my question asked oh so long ago?



It wouldn't take much. Refrain from mass murder, slavery, and torture and you would be doing better than your God. Any being that can't manage to do better than that doesn't carry much weight with me. Not so with you I guess. 

You're question was addressed and the ball left in your court.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It wouldn't take much. Refrain from mass murder, slavery, and torture and you would be doing better than your God. Any being that can't manage to do better than that doesn't carry much weight with me. Not so with you I guess.
> 
> You're question was addressed and the ball left in your court.



He's your God too, you just don't know it yet.  And, what you judge your moral opinions on is deserving of another thread, so I won't derail this one.

The question was punted.  If you're interested in the topic, you should answer it honestly.  If not, don't feign  objectivity.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 21, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> Interesting.  I've been busy and, honestly, I don't have a satisfactory answer off the top of my head.  I will look into it (as you've posed it) as time allows.
> 
> I will say, however, that whether or not Christians adhere to the OT is a separate issue than who wrote the law.  What I mean is, you could show that I am inconsistent or that Christendom is inconsistent, but that isn't really an argument against divine authorship.  Does that make sense.
> 
> As for whether or not the laws are spelled out as temporary, that would be an argument from silence which is not very compelling...but worth noting.



I agree that Christians were never expected to follow the laws that Moses gave to Israel.  My point is that Moses stated that these laws are permanent for Israel.  And I wasn't saying that I believe they are permanent simply because it doesn't say they are temporary, I provided numerous examples of scripture stating clearly that the laws are permanent and only mentioned that I could not find a single scripture contradicting that.  

The issue here is whether Moses said that all these laws are permanent for Israel, or if God said that all these laws are permanent for Israel.


----------



## JFS (Feb 21, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> The question was punted.




Hard to keep track.  What exactly was the question?


----------

