# Is my atheist dad in heaven?



## atlashunter

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/heartsick-boy-asks-atheist-dad-193340202.html


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/heartsick-boy-asks-atheist-dad-193340202.html



I wonder if a Protestant/Catholic debate is allowed down here.


----------



## ky55

ambush80 said:


> I wonder if a Protestant/Catholic debate is allowed down here.



Hitchens would have said...
As long as they are Protestant atheists and Catholic atheists. 




*


----------



## SemperFiDawg

As for that Papal Infallibility, errr......


----------



## atlashunter

It's christian doctrine that is tormenting that kid in the first place.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> It's christian doctrine that is tormenting that kid in the first place.



That's a bit twisted.  If his dad was a Christian the doctrine wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a bit twisted.  If his dad was a Christian the doctrine wouldn't be a problem.



He wasn't a christian. According to christian doctrine that means he is doomed in the afterlife regardless of how good a person he was. That is what is twisted and has that boy in tears.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> He wasn't a christian. According to christian doctrine that means he is doomed in the afterlife regardless of how good a person he was. That is what is twisted and has that boy in tears.




You perplex me. In fact a lot of you do in this regard.   You strike me as one who believes in personal freedom and personal accountability.  If a person was guilty of a crime and sentenced accordingly you wouldn’t blame the criminal law for the boy being upset his father was gone.  If a man walks off a cliff you wouldn’t blame the law of gravity for the hurt the son was feeling.  Yet here you blame God’s law and thus God, abdicating all sense of personal freedom and responsibility when it comes to something that has a bearing on you.    I understand precisely why you do this and like I said, it’s twisted.....into a double standard.  That my friend is called hypocrisy.

There’s only one person to blame for the hurt this poor child is feeling, and that is his father.  The Pope was correct in his sentiments partially in that at least this father didn’t drag his children down with him.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> You perplex me. In fact a lot of you do in this regard.   You strike me as one who believes in personal freedom and personal accountability.  If a person was guilty of a crime and sentenced accordingly you wouldn’t blame the criminal law for the boy being upset his father was gone.  If a man walks off a cliff you wouldn’t blame the law of gravity for the hurt the son was feeling.  Yet here you blame God’s law and thus God.  Like I said, twisted.....into a double standard.  That my friend is called hypocrisy.
> 
> There’s only one person to blame for the hurt this poor child is feeling, and that is his father.  The Pope was correct in his sentiments partially in that at least this father didn’t drag his children down with him.



Eternal suffering.

I can't think of anyone that deserves that, much less for simply and perhaps honestly, through great intellectual and spiritual struggle, not believing that Jesus is Lord. I'm more moral than the god of the Bible.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> You perplex me. In fact a lot of you do in this regard.   You strike me as one who believes in personal freedom and personal accountability.  If a person was guilty of a crime and sentenced accordingly you wouldn’t blame the criminal law for the boy being upset his father was gone.  If a man walks off a cliff you wouldn’t blame the law of gravity for the hurt the son was feeling.  Yet here you blame God’s law and thus God, abdicating all sense of personal freedom and responsibility when it comes to something that has a bearing on you.    I understand precisely why you do this and like I said, it’s twisted.....into a double standard.  That my friend is called hypocrisy.
> 
> There’s only one person to blame for the hurt this poor child is feeling, and that is his father.  The Pope was correct in his sentiments partially in that at least this father didn’t drag his children down with him.


Your assessment has one glaring problem. See if you can pick it out.
Criminal law
The law of gravity.
God and his law.

One of these is not like the others.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> You perplex me. In fact a lot of you do in this regard.   You strike me as one who believes in personal freedom and personal accountability.  If a person was guilty of a crime and sentenced accordingly you wouldn’t blame the criminal law for the boy being upset his father was gone.  If a man walks off a cliff you wouldn’t blame the law of gravity for the hurt the son was feeling.  Yet here you blame God’s law and thus God, abdicating all sense of personal freedom and responsibility when it comes to something that has a bearing on you.    I understand precisely why you do this and like I said, it’s twisted.....into a double standard.  That my friend is called hypocrisy.
> 
> There’s only one person to blame for the hurt this poor child is feeling, and that is his father.  The Pope was correct in his sentiments partially in that at least this father didn’t drag his children down with him.



The pope tiptoed around the implications of Christian doctrine which indicates he knows it is immoral and unjust and that’s putting it mildly. You’re right in that if someone has committed a crime and faces a just punishment for that crime nobody should shy away from it. Yet the pope did. He didn’t say, yes your atheist father is burning in an eternal fire because that is what the life he lived warrants. That would be openly acknowledging the monstrous nature of Christian doctrine. Instead he tried to weasel out of the question. If even the pope can recognize how evil Christian doctrine is, why can’t you?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

WaltL1 said:


> Your assessment has one glaring problem. See if you can pick it out.
> Criminal law
> The law of gravity.
> God and his law.
> 
> One of these is not like the others.



Yeah... because we know it wasn't God who created gravity, laid down criminal law, and all other natural laws. <sarc>


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> I'm more moral than the god of the Bible.



Ahhh. PRIDE.  Perhaps you know of the one who coined it.  He too thought himself higher that God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> The pope tiptoed around the implications of Christian doctrine which indicates he knows it is immoral and unjust and that’s putting it mildly. You’re right in that if someone has committed a crime and faces a just punishment for that crime nobody should shy away from it. Yet the pope did. He didn’t say, yes your atheist father is burning in an eternal fire because that is what the life he lived warrants. That would be openly acknowledging the monstrous nature of Christian doctrine. Instead he tried to weasel out of the question. If even the pope can recognize how evil Christian doctrine is, why can’t you?





> The pope tiptoed around the implications of Christian doctrine which indicates he knows it is immoral




I swear!  I don't know how you do it.   You go from well thought out positions in the political forum to totally unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims and conclusions here.  I don't know what you have against God or Religion, but whatever it is it must be very emotional, because nothing else has the ability to skew a mans faculties like emotions.  Case in point:



> The pope tiptoed around the implications of Christian doctrine



Very rational and I completely agree.



> which indicates he knows it is immoral and unjust



Not only irrational, but given the context delusional.



> You’re right in that if someone has committed a crime and faces a just punishment for that crime nobody should shy away from it. Yet the pope did. He didn’t say, yes your atheist father is burning in an eternal fire because that is what the life he lived warrants.



Rational and yet, 



> That would be openly acknowledging the monstrous nature of Christian doctrine.



wildly delusion by any sane persons standard.

Rational 



> Instead he tried to weasel out of the question.



Delusional



> If even the pope can recognize how evil Christian doctrine is, why can’t you?



Are you sensing a disjointed pattern here between your assessments and conclusions?  Like I said, it has to be emotional.


----------



## oldfella1962

atlashunter said:


> He wasn't a christian. According to christian doctrine that means he is doomed in the afterlife regardless of how good a person he was. That is what is twisted and has that boy in tears.



exactly. Gospel says being a good person (even a great person) just doesn't cut it because every good thing we do is just rags in god's eyes.  In other words there are no good people - you must believe or you go to eternal torture. The Pope can whitewash it all he wants.
But it would be rough answering a question like that!


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ahhh. PRIDE.  Perhaps you know of the one who coined it.  He too thought himself higher that God.



Pride is justified if his statement is true. Even you are more moral than the god of the bible. It really doesn't take much.


----------



## atlashunter

oldfella1962 said:


> exactly. Gospel says being a good person (even a great person) just doesn't cut it because every good thing we do is just rags in god's eyes.  In other words there are no good people - you must believe or you go to eternal torture. The Pope can whitewash it all he wants.
> But it would be rough answering a question like that!



If the christian answer is just then why would it be rough? Look if the child of a mass murderer asked about their parent being sentenced to death it wouldn't be hard for most people to say yes that is his punishment because he did X, Y, and Z that warrants such a punishment. Why didn't the pope give a comparable answer? I think if he did it would be readily apparent how morally bankrupt the core of christian doctrine actually is. I think his answer proves that he is well aware of that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Your assessment has one glaring problem. See if you can pick it out.
> Criminal law
> The law of gravity.
> God and his law.
> 
> One of these is not like the others.



Correct.  For two of these justice is temporal but not always perfect, the other one is for those who might somehow escape the first two and IS perfect.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

oldfella1962 said:


> exactly. Gospel says being a good person (even a great person) just doesn't cut it because every good thing we do is just rags in god's eyes.  In other words there are no good people - you must believe or you go to eternal torture. The Pope can whitewash it all he wants.
> But it would be rough answering a question like that!



Agreed.  No such thing as "a good man".


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> Pride is justified if his statement is true. Even you are more moral than the god of the bible. It really doesn't take much.





> Pride is justified



I think I see your problem, but there's no reasoning with it.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Agreed.  No such thing as "a good man".



I feel sorry for you if your life experience has led you to believe that. There are indeed good men. There is no such thing as a perfect man but one need not be perfect to be good. Even if your statement held true it doesn't follow that all men deserve to be tortured for an eternity.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think I see your problem, but there's no reasoning with it.



We just disagree on what is virtuous. One can and should be proud in exhibiting excellence and truth. You think pride even when justified is a fault. You also think faith is a virtue. I don't.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ahhh. PRIDE.  Perhaps you know of the one who coined it.  He too thought himself higher that God.





atlashunter said:


> Pride is justified if his statement is true. Even you are more moral than the god of the bible. It really doesn't take much.



I didn't say that with any pride.  It was just a statement of fact, like "I weigh more than Jesus".  No pride in it.


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> Yeah... because we know it wasn't God who created gravity, laid down criminal law, and all other natural laws. <sarc>


No, we don't know that it wasn't.
Nor do we know that it was.
SFD's entire assessment is based on what he believes not what is fact.
But it is fact that apples fall down and that there are criminal laws.

Come on lets just be honest here


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Correct.  For two of these justice is temporal but not always perfect, the other one is for those who might somehow escape the first two and IS perfect.


Your entire premise is that the three should be treated the same by the Atheist.
Now you are telling me the differences between the three.
The dots of your premise don't connect.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Perhaps the Pope sees his answer being within the doctrine of Catholicism. I'm no expert on it but I think works is a big part of what they believe. 
God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. The man did get his children baptized. He must have felt some belief in doing so. He could have been called by God on his deathbed. 
I think within the bounds of Catholicism, one can be called after physical death even.
I'm trying to see this through the Pope's vision instead of the Pope seeing Christian doctrine as immoral.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> We just disagree on what is virtuous. One can and should be proud in exhibiting excellence and truth. You think pride even when justified is a fault. You also think faith is a virtue. I don't.



Truth is the very least a man _should_ proffer. What pride could he find in that?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> I feel sorry for you if your life experience has led you to believe that. There are indeed good men. There is no such thing as a perfect man but one need not be perfect to be good. Even if your statement held true it doesn't follow that all men deserve to be tortured for an eternity.



Don't feel sorry for me.  My life experiences have led me to the truth.  There are no good men myself included.  It's beyond debate.  The only people that would debate it are those too prideful to realize how monstrous they could truly be.
    You are correct to recognize there are no perfect man, but again your assessment and conclusions are disjointed, because one DOES have to be perfect to attain holiness.  By accepting Christ, the holiness of Christ is imputed to you.  By rejecting him knowing the consequences and then complaining about it are as groundless as a would be criminal complaining the law is too harsh while fully intending to continue breaking it.  It's the ultimate case of the guilty playing the victim card.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> We just disagree on what is virtuous. One can and should be proud in exhibiting excellence and truth. You think pride even when justified is a fault. You also think faith is a virtue. I don't.





> One can and should be proud in exhibiting excellence and truth.



Really?  Do excellence and truth owe their genesis to you?  Are you the living embodiment of them or did they originate elsewhere and you just adopted them?  Because if you just adopted them then you have no more reason to be prideful over them than you would a cur dog you started feeding. 



> You think pride even when justified is a fault.



You are correct.  Pride is a fault in EVERY instance and it will be until you can will yourself into being, but yet you couldn't extend your life for one millisecond if.........well if your life depended on it.  You couldn't hit your mouth with a spoon except for the grace of God.  What have you to be proud of that was not given to you?



> You also think faith is a virtue. I don't.



You're wrong.  You have faith also.  It's just misplaced, so it's not a virtue in that case.  Faith is only a virtue if what one has faith IN is true.  Christ said "I am The Way, The Truth and The Life.  If you could even scratch the surface of the meaning of this, you would begin to understand.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

> I'm more moral than the god of the Bible.





ambush80 said:


> I didn't say that with any pride.  It was just a statement of fact, like "I weigh more than Jesus".  No pride in it.




If that's true then you're suffering from megalomania or ignorance of which you speak.


----------



## Mexican Squealer

Yes. Your dad is in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored....


----------



## Artfuldodger

Mexican Squealer said:


> Yes. Your dad is in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored....



I think the Pope said God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. God is the one who says who goes to heaven, not the catechism. Not the pope, not you or me, but God.

The father did get his children baptized. 

I don't think people understand the power of God.

Romans 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

We have no idea what kind of pottery the father became. Perhaps his son is a vessel of wrath.

Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

This from a man hours before his death. No lifetime of works. No baptism. No feeding the poor. No prayers after he died. I wasn't in the head of this child's father when he died.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don't feel sorry for me.  My life experiences have led me to the truth.  There are no good men myself included.  It's beyond debate.  The only people that would debate it are those too prideful to realize how monstrous they could truly be.
> You are correct to recognize there are no perfect man, but again your assessment and conclusions are disjointed, because one DOES have to be perfect to attain holiness.  By accepting Christ, the holiness of Christ is imputed to you.  By rejecting him knowing the consequences and then complaining about it are as groundless as a would be criminal complaining the law is too harsh while fully intending to continue breaking it.  It's the ultimate case of the guilty playing the victim card.



I've known genuinely good men. I didn't say I was one of them. I'm quite sure you're a long way from "the truth" in many regards and this one in particular. Believing a nonsensical and immoral claim based on hearsay doesn't make one righteous. It makes them a fool. It's hardly a crime to refrain from such foolishness let alone a crime worthy of being subjected to eternal torture. Meanwhile the worst mass murderers in history can repent and be saved just before death and they get a reward of eternal bliss. This is the morality of christianity. Evil in its most fundamental doctrines and then dresses itself up as some standard of morality. It's nothing of the sort.

While we are speaking of goodness, what of the proclaimed goodness of this christian deity? What mortal has been as monstrous as he?


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> I think the Pope said God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. God is the one who says who goes to heaven, not the catechism. Not the pope, not you or me, but God.
> 
> The father did get his children baptized.
> 
> I don't think people understand the power of God.



Then why has the church taken indulgences?


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> Perhaps the Pope sees his answer being within the doctrine of Catholicism. I'm no expert on it but I think works is a big part of what they believe.
> God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. The man did get his children baptized. He must have felt some belief in doing so. He could have been called by God on his deathbed.
> I think within the bounds of Catholicism, one can be called after physical death even.
> I'm trying to see this through the Pope's vision instead of the Pope seeing Christian doctrine as immoral.



I've known a lot of people who weren't believers but still had their children baptized in the Catholic church just to appease nagging relatives. It's a benign ritual so if it helps someone sleep at night, why not? Assuming he must have felt some belief is assuming too much.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really?  Do excellence and truth owe their genesis to you?  Are you the living embodiment of them or did they originate elsewhere and you just adopted them?  Because if you just adopted them then you have no more reason to be prideful over them than you would a cur dog you started feeding.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.  Pride is a fault in EVERY instance and it will be until you can will yourself into being, but yet you couldn't extend your life for one millisecond if.........well if your life depended on it.  You couldn't hit your mouth with a spoon except for the grace of God.  What have you to be proud of that was not given to you?
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  You have faith also.  It's just misplaced, so it's not a virtue in that case.  Faith is only a virtue if what one has faith IN is true.  Christ said "I am The Way, The Truth and The Life.  If you could even scratch the surface of the meaning of this, you would begin to understand.



I realize you think everything is owed to the gods. You're not the first to believe such nonsense but it hardly puts you in any position to lecture others on misplaced pride.


----------



## Artfuldodger

atlashunter said:


> Then why has the church taken indulgences?



Maybe the Pope is too indulgent with indulgences.
The Church is a bigger entity than the church of the Pope.
I'm not sure how indulgences work. Do they do them for everyone that dies or just a Catholic atheist? Would they do them for a Protestant atheist?

I do believe that is why the Pope said what he said. His beliefs are different than mine. Maybe after he talked to the kid he says to his comrades "double the indulgences, I've got to get his father a ticket into Heaven" otherwise he'll hate me."

That's a weird concept that I don't understand but to a Catholic it might be feasible.

I believe that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. 

Romans 11:33
Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!

This was said by Paul in relation to God electing a group of Jews and hardening the rest until the full number of Gentiles come in. 

For God to need any help from the Pope's indulgences is out of the scope of my belief.


----------



## atlashunter

Basically money to say your sins are forgiven or your punishment will be lightened. Rather convenient for those who later say it’s out of our hands to decide when put on the spot. I think the popes response speaks volumes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> SFD's entire assessment is based on what he believes not what is fact.



As is yours.  The difference is the one I hold passes the correspondence and coherence test.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> As is yours.  The difference is the one I hold passes the correspondence and coherence test.


I know that you know your entire belief is based on faith not fact.
So we both know that this -


> the one I hold passes the correspondence and coherence test


is a pile of crap.
Yet you say it anyway.
So when you say stuff like this -


> I think I see your problem, but there's no reasoning with it


.
It makes you look like a real tool.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I know that you know your entire belief is based on faith not fact.
> So we both know that this -
> 
> is a pile of crap.
> Yet you say it anyway.
> So when you say stuff like this -
> .
> It makes you look like a real tool.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

One day.... those who have misrepresented God, will have to answer for the he11 concept that they love so much. The entire concept is based on a parable of a rich man and Lazurus. Everything else, everything.... is a corrupt mistranslation, easily shown for what it is, yet none of them will research it, they just continue to regurgitate what they have been told, like robots, because the truth is, they love the concept of he11. They want it.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> One day.... those who have misrepresented God, will have to answer for the he11 concept that they love so much. The entire concept is based on a parable of a rich man and Lazurus. Everything else, everything.... is a corrupt mistranslation, easily shown for what it is, yet none of them will research it, they just continue to regurgitate what they have been told, like robots, because the truth is, they love the concept of he11. They want it.



"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

Benjamin Franklin


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> One day.... those who have misrepresented God, will have to answer for the he11 concept that they love so much. The entire concept is based on a parable of a rich man and Lazurus. Everything else, everything.... is a corrupt mistranslation, easily shown for what it is, yet none of them will research it, they just continue to regurgitate what they have been told, like robots, because the truth is, they love the concept of he11. They want it.



Just curious, what’s your source for that?


----------



## hummerpoo

Is every man the only man capable of independent thought or is no man capable of independent thought?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> I know that you know your entire belief is based on faith not fact.
> So we both know that this -
> 
> is a pile of crap.
> Yet you say it anyway.
> So when you say stuff like this -
> .
> It makes you look like a real tool.





> I know that you know your entire belief is based on faith not fact.



You KNOW nothing of the sort and to suggest you do is preposterous.  There’s no way you could feasibly know unless you are God yourself , so in essence you are claiming to be someone you deny exists.  See a problem with that?  It’s called a contradiction and quiet sensibly makes your thesis nonsensical.....which just so happens to be the case with every arguement for atheism.   As for your denigrating remarks,  well they’re no less that what I’ve come to expect from people who are bound together by a mantra who’s sole foundation is bitter emotionalism.


----------



## ky55

atlashunter said:


> Basically money to say your sins are forgiven or your punishment will be lightened. Rather convenient for those who later say it’s out of our hands to decide when put on the spot. I think the popes response speaks volumes.



Yep, indulgences were pay-to-play, kinda like Mafia protection rackets.....
Except the Mafia dropped your coverage after you died.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> Just curious, what’s your source for that?


 No source, just a year of studying through the entire bible with only that as my focus. There is zero concept of he11 in the OT. And in the NT, every use of he11 is the word gehnna which is a trash dump outside the city where they burned their trash and dung. People were always bringing more trash, so the fire never went out. Nothing to do with eternal punishment. We can not look at NT writings or concepts differently than the writer himself intended. The Catholic church, before the bible was printed, worked hard to control the masses. This originated with them. The devil is an eternal being along with his angels, they will be locked away in a "bottomless pit" or whatever else the bible calls it. But not unbelievers. There is no way that Paul would say "I wish I were cut off for the sake of my people" that he may die in their place if he believed in an eternal punishment forever and ever. That would mean that he was saying that I will burn in he11 forever and ever, for them, in their place. To imply that God would punish unbelievers for ever and ever and ever, because he failed to reveal himself to them, means it's on him.... for creating us the way he did. All on him. The Governments should come together and start a collition to start blasting into heaven. How can they claim a loving God, whom would make his creation suffer, for eternity. This entire concept of he11 is a misrepresentation of God. And though those who love it will be infuriated, they will not research the verses to see if what I am saying is right..... because they don't want it to be right. They prefer a he11


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> You KNOW nothing of the sort and to suggest you do is preposterous.  There’s no way you could feasibly know unless you are God yourself , so in essence you are claiming to be someone you deny exists.  See a problem with that?  It’s called a contradiction and quiet sensibly makes your thesis nonsensical.....which just so happens to be the case with every arguement for atheism.   As for your denigrating remarks,  well they’re no less that what I’ve come to expect from people who are bound together by a mantra who’s sole foundation is bitter emotionalism.


Your reasoning process is nothing less than the 8th wonder of the world.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I didn't know money was involved with indulgences. I can see where the He11 scare would be needed.


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> No source, just a year of studying through the entire bible with only that as my focus. There is zero concept of he11 in the OT. And in the NT, every use of he11 is the word gehnna which is a trash dump outside the city where they burned their trash and dung. People were always bringing more trash, so the fire never went out. Nothing to do with eternal punishment. We can not look at NT writings or concepts differently than the writer himself intended. The Catholic church, before the bible was printed, worked hard to control the masses. This originated with them. The devil is an eternal being along with his angels, they will be locked away in a "bottomless pit" or whatever else the bible calls it. But not unbelievers. There is no way that Paul would say "I wish I were cut off for the sake of my people" that he may die in their place if he believed in an eternal punishment forever and ever. That would mean that he was saying that I will burn in he11 forever and ever, for them, in their place. To imply that God would punish unbelievers for ever and ever and ever, because he failed to reveal himself to them, means it's on him.... for creating us the way he did. All on him. The Governments should come together and start a collition to start blasting into heaven. How can they claim a loving God, whom would make his creation suffer, for eternity. This entire concept of he11 is a misrepresentation of God. And though those who love it will be infuriated, they will not research the verses to see if what I am saying is right..... because they don't want it to be right. They prefer a he11



What do you make of these verses?

Revelation 14

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.



Revelation 20

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> You KNOW nothing of the sort and to suggest you do is preposterous.  There’s no way you could feasibly know unless you are God yourself , so in essence you are claiming to be someone you deny exists.  See a problem with that?  It’s called a contradiction and quiet sensibly makes your thesis nonsensical.....which just so happens to be the case with every arguement for atheism.   As for your denigrating remarks,  well they’re no less that what I’ve come to expect from people who are bound together by a mantra who’s sole foundation is bitter emotionalism.



Pot meet Kettle


----------



## ky55

Artfuldodger said:


> I didn't know money was involved with indulgences. I can see where the He11 scare would be needed.



Yep, it’s one of the issues that got Martin Luther stirred up back in 1517.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

“By the late Middle Ages, the abuse of indulgences, mainly through commercialization, had become a serious problem which the Church recognized but was unable to restrain effectively. Indulgences were, from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, a target of attacks by Martin Luther and all other Protestant theologians. Eventually the Catholic Counter-Reformation curbed the excesses, but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life. Reforms in the 20th century largely abolished the quantification of indulgences, which had been expressed in terms of days or years. These days or years were meant to represent the equivalent of time spent in penance, although it was widely taken to mean time spent in Purgatory. The reforms also greatly reduced the number of indulgences granted for visiting particular churches and other locations.”


*


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> No source, just a year of studying through the entire bible with only that as my focus. There is zero concept of he11 in the OT. And in the NT, every use of he11 is the word gehnna which is a trash dump outside the city where they burned their trash and dung. People were always bringing more trash, so the fire never went out. Nothing to do with eternal punishment. We can not look at NT writings or concepts differently than the writer himself intended. The Catholic church, before the bible was printed, worked hard to control the masses. This originated with them. The devil is an eternal being along with his angels, they will be locked away in a "bottomless pit" or whatever else the bible calls it. But not unbelievers. There is no way that Paul would say "I wish I were cut off for the sake of my people" that he may die in their place if he believed in an eternal punishment forever and ever. That would mean that he was saying that I will burn in he11 forever and ever, for them, in their place. To imply that God would punish unbelievers for ever and ever and ever, because he failed to reveal himself to them, means it's on him.... for creating us the way he did. All on him. The Governments should come together and start a collition to start blasting into heaven. How can they claim a loving God, whom would make his creation suffer, for eternity. This entire concept of he11 is a misrepresentation of God. And though those who love it will be infuriated, they will not research the verses to see if what I am saying is right..... because they don't want it to be right. They prefer a he11


And why?
Because they are absolutely convinced they aren't going there. They have judged themselves worthy of Heaven. They have judged "us" to be worthy of He11.
And in the next sentence tell us that only God judges.....

If all this God, Heaven & He11 stuff turns out to be real, I find it oddly comforting that I'll be sitting round the fire down below with a whole lot of surprised, sanctimonious Christians


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> I've known genuinely good men. I didn't say I was one of them. I'm quite sure you're a long way from "the truth" in many regards and this one in particular. Believing a nonsensical and immoral claim based on hearsay doesn't make one righteous. It makes them a fool. It's hardly a crime to refrain from such foolishness let alone a crime worthy of being subjected to eternal torture. Meanwhile the worst mass murderers in history can repent and be saved just before death and they get a reward of eternal bliss. This is the morality of christianity. Evil in its most fundamental doctrines and then dresses itself up as some standard of morality. It's nothing of the sort.
> 
> While we are speaking of goodness, what of the proclaimed goodness of this christian deity? What mortal has been as monstrous as he?



As has already been pointed out.  Good ain't Good Enuff.
I won't address the rest as it's no more than a poor mans job of denigration bordering on delusional.  Suffice it to say no sane person would come to the same conclusions.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Your reasoning process is nothing less than the 8th wonder of the world.



Sorry Brother, but I can't say the same for yours.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I love the worldview or many Christians that all people are by default bad and evil and contaminated and born Hades-bound, even though they were created in God's image. I'm sorry, I don't believe that people are bad by nature and in need of redemption to become acceptable people.

There are plenty of naturally good people, and plenty of naturally bad people. I've known a lot of both. How much religion they had generally had not a thing to do with how they behaved or treated others around them. It must be depressing to go through life with a negative view of things that are plenty good just the way they are.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

1gr8bldr said:


> One day.... those who have misrepresented God, will have to answer for the he11 concept that they love so much. The entire concept is based on a parable of a rich man and Lazurus. Everything else, everything.... is a corrupt mistranslation, easily shown for what it is, yet none of them will research it, they just continue to regurgitate what they have been told, like robots, because the truth is, they love the concept of he11. They want it.



Undoubtedly you researched it a bit further than your reasoning stretched.  There's a reason it's been a concrete doctrine since the dawn of Christianity and you would be wise to take that into account.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> I love the worldview or many Christians that all people are by default bad and evil and contaminated and born Hades-bound, even though they were created in God's image. I'm sorry, I don't believe that people are bad by nature and in need of redemption to become acceptable people.
> 
> There are plenty of naturally good people, and plenty of naturally bad people. I've known a lot of both. How much religion they had generally had not a thing to do with how they behaved or treated others around them. It must be depressing to go through life with a negative view of things that are plenty good just the way they are.



Look around here Brother.  It's not the Christians that are bitter.  Gnaw on that a bit.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ky55 said:


> Yep, it’s one of the issues that got Martin Luther stirred up back in 1517.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
> 
> “By the late Middle Ages, the abuse of indulgences, mainly through commercialization, had become a serious problem which the Church recognized but was unable to restrain effectively. Indulgences were, from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, a target of attacks by Martin Luther and all other Protestant theologians. Eventually the Catholic Counter-Reformation curbed the excesses, but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life. Reforms in the 20th century largely abolished the quantification of indulgences, which had been expressed in terms of days or years. These days or years were meant to represent the equivalent of time spent in penance, although it was widely taken to mean time spent in Purgatory. The reforms also greatly reduced the number of indulgences granted for visiting particular churches and other locations.”
> *



Thanks, I didn't know that little history lesson.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> Look around here Brother.  It's not the Christians that are bitter.  Gnaw on that a bit.



Nope, you are the one that said "good ain't good enough," and "there are no good men." I simply disagree with those statements, no bitterness involved. The world isn't all darkness and evil, and all people weren't born bad or contaminated because of a woman eating an apple and talking to a snake several thousand years ago. Sorry.


----------



## WaltL1

NCHillbilly said:


> I love the worldview or many Christians that all people are by default bad and evil and contaminated and born Hades-bound, even though they were created in God's image. I'm sorry, I don't believe that people are bad by nature and in need of redemption to become acceptable people.
> 
> There are plenty of naturally good people, and plenty of naturally bad people. I've known a lot of both. How much religion they had generally had not a thing to do with how they behaved or treated others around them. It must be depressing to go through life with a negative view of things that are plenty good just the way they are.


It would be depressing if you actually and truly believed that. But if you are just regurgitating what you are supposed to believe its basically like water flowing off a duck' s back.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> What do you make of these verses?
> 
> Revelation 14
> 
> 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
> 
> 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
> 
> 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation 20
> 
> 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
> 
> 
> 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


First off, notice who it is that will suffer.... whether it's eternal or for a time period....... [the word is aions, meaning "age", not forever and ever. Jesus spoke of ages, the age to come, etc. It was a period of time,  but the point here is that those spoken of are not unbelievers. They are not sinners. They are those whom have gone up against the real Christ, siding with the antichrist. The army of the antichrist, you might say. They will suffer, for a period of time??? maybe forever???? Those who's names are not written in the book, nonbelievers, destroyed as they are thrown in the fire. No suffering spoken of. To further this. Notice the 3 part beast. I used to think it was a false, imposter, mimic of the trinity. I no longer believe this. Look at it, interesting.... 666, three part baptismal formula, Father, son and HS. City on a hill, Roman Cathloic doctrine. The Antichrist claims to be God, the trinitarian Jesus having done so. How fitting that those yeilding the he11 sword are the very one's that will be tormented by it. There is no he11 for unbelievers


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> First off, notice who it is that will suffer.... whether it's eternal or for a time period....... [the word is aions, meaning "age", not forever and ever. Jesus spoke of ages, the age to come, etc. It was a period of time,  but the point here is that those spoken of are not unbelievers. They are not sinners. They are those whom have gone up against the real Christ, siding with the antichrist. The army of the antichrist, you might say. They will suffer, for a period of time??? maybe forever???? Those who's names are not written in the book, nonbelievers, destroyed as they are thrown in the fire. No suffering spoken of. To further this. Notice the 3 part beast. I used to think it was a false, imposter, mimic of the trinity. I no longer believe this. Look at it, interesting.... 666, three part baptismal formula, Father, son and HS. City on a hill, Roman Cathloic doctrine. The Antichrist claims to be God, the trinitarian Jesus having done so. How fitting that those yeilding the he11 sword are the very one's that will be tormented by it. There is no he11 for unbelievers



What you are saying is the opposite of eternal life is everlasting death? Interesting concept, to die when you die vs eternal life. I think that's a reasonable conception of what Jesus died for.

How do you view the baptism formula then? In Jesus name only?


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> First off, notice who it is that will suffer.... whether it's eternal or for a time period....... [the word is aions, meaning "age", not forever and ever. Jesus spoke of ages, the age to come, etc. It was a period of time,  but the point here is that those spoken of are not unbelievers. They are not sinners. They are those whom have gone up against the real Christ, siding with the antichrist. The army of the antichrist, you might say. They will suffer, for a period of time??? maybe forever???? Those who's names are not written in the book, nonbelievers, destroyed as they are thrown in the fire. No suffering spoken of. To further this. Notice the 3 part beast. I used to think it was a false, imposter, mimic of the trinity. I no longer believe this. Look at it, interesting.... 666, three part baptismal formula, Father, son and HS. City on a hill, Roman Cathloic doctrine. The Antichrist claims to be God, the trinitarian Jesus having done so. How fitting that those yeilding the he11 sword are the very one's that will be tormented by it. There is no he11 for unbelievers


Precisely.
If the Bible is accurate unbelievers will die. Period. No soul to live eternally with God.

Now, for the believers who are also unworthy, phony, and think they are true Christians....well they will die and their soul will go on miserably in the absence of God.


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> First off, notice who it is that will suffer.... whether it's eternal or for a time period....... [the word is aions, meaning "age", not forever and ever. Jesus spoke of ages, the age to come, etc. It was a period of time,  but the point here is that those spoken of are not unbelievers. They are not sinners. They are those whom have gone up against the real Christ, siding with the antichrist. The army of the antichrist, you might say. They will suffer, for a period of time??? maybe forever???? Those who's names are not written in the book, nonbelievers, destroyed as they are thrown in the fire. No suffering spoken of. To further this. Notice the 3 part beast. I used to think it was a false, imposter, mimic of the trinity. I no longer believe this. Look at it, interesting.... 666, three part baptismal formula, Father, son and HS. City on a hill, Roman Cathloic doctrine. The Antichrist claims to be God, the trinitarian Jesus having done so. How fitting that those yeilding the he11 sword are the very one's that will be tormented by it. There is no he11 for unbelievers


Blasphemy! 
Take away that comforting self righteous feeling of "I'm good they are bad"?
This will never fly with the Christian masses.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> What you are saying is the opposite of eternal life is everlasting death? Interesting concept, to die when you die vs eternal life. I think that's a reasonable conception of what Jesus died for.
> 
> How do you view the baptism formula then? In Jesus name only?


Yes, in Jesus name only. Google Matt 28 and see the debates of how the later is thought to be added. Everywhere else, it's in Jesus name. Context is... all authority has been given to me..... me, so why then say go baptise in the name of the trinity? With this you can clearly see our bibles have been tampered with, a long time ago. EDIT, Eusebius, in 325 AD had said that his copy had "in my name"


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> Blasphemy!
> Take away that comforting self righteous feeling of "I'm good they are bad"?
> This will never fly with the Christian masses.



That would be h-e double-l on earth for a bunch of folks I know.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> What you are saying is the opposite of eternal life is everlasting death? Interesting concept, to die when you die vs eternal life. I think that's a reasonable conception of what Jesus died for.
> 
> How do you view the baptism formula then? In Jesus name only?


When God spoke of the curse.... because of sin..... it was not, you will live forever and ever. It was "die". Death. Men are mortal... unless receiving an immortal spirit, the HS.  Jesus reconciled and regained what Adam lost. Eternal life. Life in the garden, before the curse of time/aging. Eternal beings, fallen angel, those called demons, have to be contained to have a "heaven". So they will be locked up.


----------



## WaltL1

ky55 said:


> That would be h-e double-l on earth for a bunch of folks I know.


And although we are joking about it, the mind set of "I'm good they are bad" has been the foundation for a lot of atrocious things in human history.


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> When God spoke of the curse.... because of sin..... it was not, you will live forever and ever. It was "die". Death. Men are mortal... unless receiving an immortal spirit, the HS.  Jesus reconciled and regained what Adam lost. Eternal life. Life in the garden, before the curse of time/aging. Eternal beings, fallen angel, those called demons, have to be contained to have a "heaven". So they will be locked up.


So how does this connect to the belief of some that Satan/demons/evil literally and actively "make things happen"/influence people?
They doing it from behind bars?
Some demons still on the loose?

By the way,  and I am without question no scholar and don't pretend to be, but from what limited reading/research I have done, my opinion is that your position on this can be very well supported if you dig below the surface, but like you said, not what people prefer to hear.


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> First off, notice who it is that will suffer.... whether it's eternal or for a time period....... [the word is aions, meaning "age", not forever and ever. Jesus spoke of ages, the age to come, etc. It was a period of time,  but the point here is that those spoken of are not unbelievers. They are not sinners. They are those whom have gone up against the real Christ, siding with the antichrist. The army of the antichrist, you might say. They will suffer, for a period of time??? maybe forever???? Those who's names are not written in the book, nonbelievers, destroyed as they are thrown in the fire. No suffering spoken of. To further this. Notice the 3 part beast. I used to think it was a false, imposter, mimic of the trinity. I no longer believe this. Look at it, interesting.... 666, three part baptismal formula, Father, son and HS. City on a hill, Roman Cathloic doctrine. The Antichrist claims to be God, the trinitarian Jesus having done so. How fitting that those yeilding the he11 sword are the very one's that will be tormented by it. There is no he11 for unbelievers



Hmmm... not sure I buy that based on the reading. And I'll say right up front that I'm sure I haven't spent the time researching it you have so I very well may be wrong. That being said...

The phrase used in the Greek which is being translated to forever and ever is "age of ages". That same wording is used elsewhere.

http://biblehub.com/greek/aio_no_n_165.htm

The last chapter of Revelation offers a description of heaven and those in it.

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Verse 5 forever and ever is a translation of the same Greek words used in 14:11. Given the context, is that also a mistranslation? 

Another example of the same Greek words in Revelation 11:15.

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Is the proper translation here some finite period of time? I doubt you'll convince many christians of that.

Revelation 20:15 says whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 

Presumably that includes all unbelievers. It doesn't say specifically that those will burn forever and ever but doesn't say otherwise either. In the context of other biblical references that indicate this is a place of eternal torment what is the most reasonable conclusion? On what scriptural basis should one conclude that some who are thrown into this lake of fire burn for eternity while others only burn for some unspecified period of finite time? And if that's the case aren't we still back to square one that this place is biblical and the only debate is whether the torment is eternal or not?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

WaltL1 said:


> So how does this connect to the belief of some that Satan/demons/evil literally and actively "make things happen"/influence people?
> They doing it from behind bars?
> Some demons still on the loose?
> 
> By the way,  and I am without question no scholar and don't pretend to be, but from what limited reading/research I have done, my opinion is that your position on this can be very well supported if you dig below the surface, but like you said, not what people prefer to hear.


The bible implies that fallen angels are disembodied spirits, roaming the earth residing on people like a tick on a dog. Not sure that I believe this in it's fullest sense. It implies that they know their fate, that a time of punishment is coming. One might see extreme drug addiction as a demon whom provokes his person to drugs so that they don't have to cope with the thoughts of the coming punishment. LOL, deeper than I care to be here, just speculating.... based on an embellished book. They are angels, fallen angels so therefore are immortal, can't die, so they will have to be imprisoned at some time.... Otherwise, how could we have heaven with them on the loose?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> Nope, you are the one that said "good ain't good enough," and "there are no good men." I simply disagree with those statements, no bitterness involved.



Good ain't good enough.  God is holy.  His law requires a holiness that no one possesses.  Good doesn't cut it.  

Also, the bitterness comment wasn't directed at you, but to you.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> Hmmm... not sure I buy that based on the reading. And I'll say right up front that I'm sure I haven't spent the time researching it you have so I very well may be wrong. That being said...
> 
> The phrase used in the Greek which is being translated to forever and ever is "age of ages". That same wording is used elsewhere.
> 
> http://biblehub.com/greek/aio_no_n_165.htm
> 
> The last chapter of Revelation offers a description of heaven and those in it.
> 
> 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
> 
> 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
> 
> 5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
> 
> Verse 5 forever and ever is a translation of the same Greek words used in 14:11. Given the context, is that also a mistranslation?
> 
> Another example of the same Greek words in Revelation 11:15.
> 
> 15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
> 
> Is the proper translation here some finite period of time? I doubt you'll convince many christians of that.
> 
> Revelation 20:15 says whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
> 
> Presumably that includes all unbelievers. It doesn't say specifically that those will burn forever and ever but doesn't say otherwise either. In the context of other biblical references that indicate this is a place of eternal torment what is the most reasonable conclusion? On what scriptural basis should one conclude that some who are thrown into this lake of fire burn for eternity while others only burn for some unspecified period of finite time? And if that's the case aren't we still back to square one that this place is biblical and the only debate is whether the torment is eternal or not?


I agree.... that it implies a possible forever. For someone. The fact that it says ages twice alludes to this, until the age of ages, like the last age, implying forever. I suppose that would mean that I do acknowledge a he11. However, what I fight for.... is that non believers are not thrown in he11. Notice again whom it is that it refers to specifically about torment. It's a replication of fallen angels whom rebelled against God. Specifically the text is referring to those whom have rebelled against the real Jesus. Know as followers of the antichrist. I concede that the later text, not written in the book of life,  does not say those thrown in the fire suffer.. or not. Consider this verse; "If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned." It does not clarify whether they suffer or not. But it did not say they did, therefore, we each get to apply the biblical context as we understand it. And all but the rich man/lazurus parable refers to destruction, not eternal life while suffering. I'm bad rusty on these matters, having not looked into these things in over 6 years. So I have forgotten many of my go to verses


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> As has already been pointed out.  Good ain't Good Enuff.
> I won't address the rest as it's no more than a poor mans job of denigration bordering on delusional.  Suffice it to say no sane person would come to the same conclusions.



I'll say this for you SFD, christians like you are an atheists greatest ally. I hope you tell as many like that little boy as you can that "good ain't good enuff" and that their dead loved ones deserve to roast forever.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Take away that comforting self righteous feeling of "I'm good they are bad"?
> This will never fly with the Christian masses.



Always amazed at how far many atheist will go to distort reality and portray any sign of belief in God in a bad light, though I shouldn't be.  It's not like they have any necessary reason to exemplify honesty, dignity or integrity.  Also odd that anytime ANYONE is admonished or even debated for their actions their first accusation is that of self-righteousness.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> I'll say this for you SFD, christians like you are an atheists greatest ally. I hope you tell as many like that little boy as you can that "good ain't good enuff" and that their dead loved ones deserve to roast forever.



Truth is their dead loved ones were roasting long before they ever took their last breath here on earth, but I don't expect you to be able to understand that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> And although we are joking about it, the mind set of "I'm good they are bad" has been the foundation for a lot of atrocious things in human history.



You have no idea how close to the truth you just came, yet missed it by a mile.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Always amazed at how far many atheist will go to distort reality and portray any sign of belief in God in a bad light, though I shouldn't be.  It's not like they have any necessary reason to exemplify honesty, dignity or integrity.  Also odd that anytime ANYONE is admonished or even debated for their actions their first accusation is that of self-righteousness.


yawn


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> You have no idea how close to the truth you just came, yet missed it by a mile.


Its a factual statement. 
That's why you think I missed.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> Good ain't good enough.  God is holy.  His law requires a holiness that no one possesses.  Good doesn't cut it.
> 
> Also, the bitterness comment wasn't directed at you, but to you.



If the Bible is true, God is guilty of creating flawed beings and then punishing them for being how he created them. 

I don't agree with your assessment. There are plenty of good people. I don't subscribe to the doom and gloom and everything enjoyable is a sin view.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Always amazed at how far many atheist will go to distort reality and portray any sign of belief in God in a bad light, though I shouldn't be.  It's not like they have any necessary reason to exemplify honesty, dignity or integrity.  Also odd that anytime ANYONE is admonished or even debated for their actions their first accusation is that of self-righteousness.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

One would have to conclude then if he11 is true, that God is not a God of love but rather hate. Think of all the children born into a Muslim family, whom has never heard the gospel. Or all the Indians whom died before the settlers brought the gospel to America. Everyone has not had the chance to deny your version of God, thus some have been sentenced to burn unjustly. I saw a bumper sticker an hour ago. It said "EyehateGod". Thinking your loved ones were burning in fire, forever, and ever, and ever, I would too


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> I agree.... that it implies a possible forever. For someone. The fact that it says ages twice alludes to this, until the age of ages, like the last age, implying forever. I suppose that would mean that I do acknowledge a he11. However, what I fight for.... is that non believers are not thrown in he11. Notice again whom it is that it refers to specifically about torment. It's a replication of fallen angels whom rebelled against God. Specifically the text is referring to those whom have rebelled against the real Jesus. Know as followers of the antichrist. I concede that the later text, not written in the book of life,  does not say those thrown in the fire suffer.. or not. Consider this verse; "If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned." It does not clarify whether they suffer or not. But it did not say they did, therefore, we each get to apply the biblical context as we understand it. And all but the rich man/lazurus parable refers to destruction, not eternal life while suffering. I'm bad rusty on these matters, having not looked into these things in over 6 years. So I have forgotten many of my go to verses



I find quite a few references in the NT to the lake of fire. Many characterize it as a place of great suffering and everlasting punishment. I'm not aware of any scripture that indicates it is anything other than that. If some are simply to be destroyed once and for all and their suffering ended I wonder why their destination for that would be slated as an eternal lake of fire where we are told others will suffer forever and not explicitly told that some won't? It seems quite a stretch on that basis to say this is all just a mistranslation.

I think what you are fighting for is an improvement over what the scriptures tell us if we take them at face value. But I suspect it's not the message the authors of these books intended to convey.


----------



## ky55

atlashunter said:


>




Better get a parachute. 
A ladder won’t even come close. 

*


----------



## atlashunter

ky55 said:


> Better get a parachute.
> A ladder won’t even come close.
> 
> *


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> One would have to conclude then if he11 is true, that God is not a God of love but rather hate.



The pope seems to recognize that.


----------



## Israel

A man can be left to himself. If that's what he wants, God's not to blame. A man can be free of bothersome anything, or anyone...if he's so bothered.
Or he can find out, he needs to be bothered, and there's a benefit in being bothered...by a relentless friend.

The man just does not know the depths of the "not good" in "It is not good for the man to be alone".


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> A man can be left to himself. If that's what he wants, God's not to blame. A man can be free of bothersome anything, or anyone...if he's so bothered.
> Or he can find out, he needs to be bothered, and there's a benefit in being bothered...by a relentless friend.



I wonder if this god told himself that when he created both the tormented and the place of torment with the full knowledge that he would spend eternity listening to their screams?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Some other verses to make matters even more confusing.... Rev 20:14, then death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire. Weird, is that not?
Rev 19 20+21 But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed signs on his behalf, by which he deceived those who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. Both of them were thrown *alive* into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21And the rest were killed with the sword that proceeded from the mouth of the One seated on the horse. And all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. Interesting why they use "alive"??? Living is the greek, same thing. So does that imply the distinction that the others were not alive?


----------



## gemcgrew

NCHillbilly said:


> If the Bible is true, God is guilty of creating flawed beings and then punishing them for being how he created them.


Somebody lacks the ability to think this through.


----------



## NCHillbilly

gemcgrew said:


> Somebody lacks the ability to think this through.



Yes, they do. And it's not me.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Withing Christianity we have this concept that man is never good enough and thus we needed someone who was to redeem our sins with blood. 
This is the main theme of Protestant Christianity. We are never good enough and thus will always need to depend on this Redemption. Within Catholicism exists the realm of works. Besides this Redemption, man is still responsible and accountable for his works. 

Actually to be fair that concept is in both realms of Christianity and maybe it should be. Now getting back to the kids father and our discussion of Revelations.

The books were opened and the dead were judged by their deeds. We also have the Sheep and the Goats separation which is based on works. So maybe a part of Salvation is based on Redemption and part is based on our actions.

So maybe when the kid's dad stands before God and the books are opened. Maybe his dad fed Jesus when he was hungry. Maybe he clothed Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> First off, notice who it is that will suffer.... whether it's eternal or for a time period....... [the word is aions, meaning "age", not forever and ever. Jesus spoke of ages, the age to come, etc. It was a period of time,  but the point here is that those spoken of are not unbelievers. They are not sinners. They are those whom have gone up against the real Christ, siding with the antichrist. The army of the antichrist, you might say. They will suffer, for a period of time??? maybe forever???? Those who's names are not written in the book, nonbelievers, destroyed as they are thrown in the fire. No suffering spoken of. To further this. Notice the 3 part beast. I used to think it was a false, imposter, mimic of the trinity. I no longer believe this. Look at it, interesting.... 666, three part baptismal formula, Father, son and HS. City on a hill, Roman Cathloic doctrine. The Antichrist claims to be God, the trinitarian Jesus having done so. How fitting that those yeilding the he11 sword are the very one's that will be tormented by it. There is no he11 for unbelievers



This follows Ephesians 6:12 on whom God's enemies are. Eternal spirits  that can't die. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
The dead were judged for their deeds. Revelation doesn't say what happened to them. Were the dead, dead in Christ?
Next in Revelation, if one's name wasn't in the Book of Life, they were cast into the lake of fire. Perhaps the same ones as the dead who were judged by their works.

"Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

Notice John said the immortal evil spirits would be tormented for ever and ever. He didn't say that about the mortal humans.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Perhaps men who are in the Book of Life won't be judged. Maybe the dead who will be judged are dead to Christ. Judged by their deeds unlike Christians who have Redemption in Christ.

The kid's father could be dead to Christ and will be judged by his works or he may be in the Book of life.


----------



## Geezer Ray

I keep seeing all these references to good men and being good enough. Being good has nothing to do with who goes to heaven and who doesn't. There are a lot of good people that are going to bust CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored wide open and some of them are in church every Sunday. One way only, that's through Jesus Christ. God doesn't send anyone to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored , they go because they reject Jesus Christ and the salvation He offers. Arguing about this really is a waste of time because everyone one will never agree until the end and every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess. Even atheist.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Wow, the words that get censored. Lol


----------



## Mexican Squealer

Pretty easy, you accept Jesus or you don't. If you don't, you burn in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored for eternity.


----------



## ky55

Geezer Ray said:


> There are a lot of good people that are going to bust CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored wide open and some of them are in church every Sunday.




Do those “good people” go to church with you every Sunday?
If they do, have you told them you are going to heaven and they are going to burn for eternity?


*


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ky55 said:


> Do those “good people” go to church with you every Sunday?
> If they do, have you told them you are going to heaven and they are going to burn for eternity?
> 
> 
> *



No doubt there are good people who go to our church that are not saved.  The only thing I know to do is to love them, share the truth as I know it, in love, and pray for them.  It is not my job to judge them or condemn them.  

Beating people over the head with condemnation won't help anything, and will only cause division.  God calls us to relationship with Him and fellow believers.  He also calls us to love our neighbors.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Tormented;  ba·sa·niÊ¹zo, may be used as restrained. The evil immortal spirits may just be restrained. Jailers are mentioned as tormentors as well. 

When you think about it, how much of scripture is literal? How can a spirit be tortured in a literal fire? A resurrected human maybe but not a spirit. 
A fire whose source is sulfur? Is this literal? 

The lake of fire is the second death. I think we all know what death means. Man does not have an immortal soul.

I think the Lake of Fire is only in Revelation. I'm told Revelation is full of words used to allow humans to visualize the after life and end times. 
Jasper walls in Heaven, lake of fire fueled by sulfur, death thrown into the lake of fire, Jesus having keys to He11, actual books of life, etc.
If the picture John sees of Heaven isn't literal then why would the picture he sees of He11 be literal as described in his vision?

If we are going to see He11 the way John saw it in Revelation then we must see Heaven just as he describes it as well. A New Jerusalem and New Earth coming down to earth like a spaceship. Adorned as a bride dressed in her wedding gown and ready to meet her husband.
A river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, producing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month.

If He11 is a literal lake of fire fueled by sulfur, then Heaven has literal walls made of Jasper.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> I keep seeing all these references to good men and being good enough. Being good has nothing to do with who goes to heaven and who doesn't. There are a lot of good people that are going to bust CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored wide open and some of them are in church every Sunday. One way only, that's through Jesus Christ. God doesn't send anyone to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored , they go because they reject Jesus Christ and the salvation He offers. Arguing about this really is a waste of time because everyone one will never agree until the end and every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess. Even atheist.



The Sheep;
for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.

The Goats;
for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

I mean I see what you are saying but still I read verses about "evil" people being punished and good people offered a place in the Kingdom.

The boy's father in the OP may have visited Jesus in prison or clothed Jesus when he was naked.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> The Sheep;
> for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.
> 
> The Goats;
> for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
> 
> I mean I see what you are saying but still I read verses about "evil" people being punished and good people offered a place in the Kingdom.
> 
> The boy's father in the OP may have visited Jesus in prison or clothed Jesus when he was naked.



so you are saying that we have a salvation thru works.  That is totally opposite of what the Bible teaches.   The Bible teaches that no one can enter Heaven thru works, and any one that tries is like a thief.  

Salvation is only thru believing that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to cover our sins, and no work or sacrifice we do can cover our sins. 

I can only feel sad for this child. I am sorry his father squandered a future with his child for the pleasures of this world.  You might not like the teaching, but unless that man repented, the Bible teaches he will never spend eternity with God.


----------



## Israel

The "I would be a better God" card is played, at one time or another, by every man I have ever met. Except One.
The first dealer of that operates in a subtle spirit, never speaking plainly. Men are forgiven for falling for that subtlety. 

The price has been paid for falling to that subtlety by the One who spoke most plainly...even of, and to His own death. 

His words infuriate all that vainly imagines "I would be a better God", and it matters not what labels a man presents of himself, whether he call himself atheist, christian, (or one of the many flavors therein) or whatever title he thinks may identify him _to other men_ as _a something_. That subtle lie once presented and eaten continues to work in all subtlety for it bears in that subtlety what is never said, nor can be in lie; the truth.  

"I would be a better God...towards myself"

There is an immediate and simultaneous result in that lie spoken and eaten by the sibilant one, the immediate hiss of the double tongued. It embraces the separation of itself from its Creator and establishes the separated self, the my own self which is now infected _all of lie_. It believes, truly believes...it owns itself. And by subtlety deceived to embrace that lie, that separated self/ the separate self which exists in lie, and is now self condemned to wander as separate. It knows no unity. No integrity. It is all and only of oppositions. Reactive. A divided house.

It did not know...what _it had done_. 

God merely pronounces what it cannot, of itself, and to its own, escape from experiencing.

Jesus says much, all of truth, in regards to that "self", that separated self/ separate self in its embrace to infection and now love of lie. 

It is seen. It, is known. What thinks it has attained in some measure, by knowing what it believes it knows of good and evil, knowledge and the darkness of ignorance, it believes now, as god _to itself_ it can even keep the counsel of its own heart, maintain a deepest place unknown, have motive and life none can see, but itself. It believes "I cannot be seen, I am not able to be found (out)."

But, there ain't nuthin' except to be revealed.

It thinks it holds a pocket card, another trick up its sleeve that cannot ever be seen till the time it chooses to either trump all and win, or be held while opposition falls and fails of its own weight. It never realizes it operates under that same weight. For it is, to itself, God. And believes it is. And it really does believe it sees. Till the _true_ God appears.

God does not forget innocence. He cannot be accused of any man of being forgetful. Even the man who was once innocent but deceived...in subtlety. For innocence which is precious, has no defense against it. It can be told "beware of subtlety, beware of cleverness"...but it has noting (innocence) wherewith to understand. (Don't tell me you do not know these things...have yourselves not warned what is precious to you...against men "with candy". Have not sought to preserve what is _to you,_ precious...because of an innocence you would not have defiled. Corrupted. Taken advantage of by such a _weakness in innocence,_ that innocence _cannot defend_ against?) 

And God keeps all of His baby pictures...really...in His eye.

God sent His innocent One. There is only One. Who is able to keep His innocence, One who is ordained to be singular and above all. Many bristle in partial sight "it is not fair for Him to be accorded some specialness. It is not fair for Him to be able to keep what I have lost, He cannot have what I do not have...innocence before God that keeps Him as He is...always in that love". 

And infected lying men sought desperately, inflamed by the original liar, infected as they are, to strip Him of it...bring him to place of complaint...to loss of that innocence. They still do. Vainly. Jesus remained perfectly weak in that innocence and of such perfect weakness as to not resist God. 

We will do to you such things we have learned from god (that very very subtle god) to bring you to your knees before us, that you too will know the shame we feel in your presence. For kneeling to us, before us...will show your abandon of _that_ God. You will admit plainly this God you say you know is not true, and you are liar. Yet, Jesus remained perfectly weak in that innocence and of such perfect weakness as to not resist God. And let men do what they must do, always do, to perfect innocence, seek advantage.
Yes...Jesus is...SPECIAL. He occupies His place, perfectly, as Lord.

No, men cannot abide the presence of God...apart from that One who has been sent to make a way for them. The god of the separate self...devises it needs no such...no, it scorns, despises, relentlessly and furiously hates the truth...that he is a created...thing. The infection is rampant but, the cure remains perfect, and far more than sufficient.

That _own _self, created in lie, by lie, believes it can keep itself intact, and believes it has. It does not know, cannot begin to know how very plain all its deviousness is. Created of lie, it has no truth in it, yet it speaks (as though it knows) _of it_. It's lie is so very deep it believes it, of itself...even knows itself. If there is to be remedy...something (truly, Someone) not _of lie_...must go deeper still. Jesus went into the very heart of the earth. And there, unseated the liar. He did this in Himself...accomplished this...in and through Himself, and has manifested this to as many as believe. He abode where the liar never can, in the very heart of God, His very bosom and spoke, and speaks...from there. Men easily grasp at His Throne, His power, but one must forsake His bosom to do that. And Jesus never did. 

Yes, He is special. We can get over envy. We can be...glad.

For His _gift of abiding_ was not for Himself won, anymore than it was _by Himself _won (of myself I can do nothing)...but for those, all those who, by the work of God have come to see, or will yet; I do not see well, I do not know well, I am not...in myself, well.


"This is the work of God, that you believe upon Him whom He has sent" 

Oh, how I _hated_ His work, the perfect frustration of "me" in that separate self I so convinced was in right relation to "myself". Someone came I could not bear to know. Until...

I saw the resurrection out from the dead. And began to see what death he entered...for me. Because I was _in it_. Yes, he took a captive...captive. Went far deeper than I knew, even of _my own _frustration.

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope...


How little could I know that all my frustration (which I would/could never have chosen) was ordained...that I might find a door? How little could I have _known_ or _chosen_ to be not my own god?

We are forgiven...of not knowing.


"Forgive them Father, they _know not_ what they do..."

Dirt deciding for itself what can be, might be, is _allowed_...to be.

If you believe dirt can talk, why do you have such difficulty with talking donkey dirt? Be consistent in your mind and learn where the_ allowance of communication _(relation) originates. Only _to you_? Only_ in you_? Only..._out from you_?

Dirt deciding for itself what can be, might be, is _allowed_...to be.


If so I tell you...you will lose even that..._allowance_. And to your _own god_, of your _own self_ you will be locked up, and you will know all the insanity of lie. With no one but yourself...to know it.

Few of you have ever been in jail, perhaps even fewer ever in prison. Do you know? Do you know the how and why men have learned "solitary" can be so very very effective? Because they know it from a place they do not know, from a god who does not see, from depths they dare not go...but think they can assign others. But it is coming up...out of themselves. I warn you as brothers, and admonish you as friends all, there is a place you _do not want_ to go, never _know_ in depth. And surely...even more surely...a place has been made for you to ascend in all fellowship, communing...relationship...that will not be denied. The innocent One has made a way. Seek it, find it, ask for it. Ask into all your unknowing to find the One who is _not you_...who knows. He is not far from any.

He is nearer than your heart and lips...even for _all our_ sake.

It is as simple as believing you are a created...thing.
And learn all the glory that is in being simply...but O, so specially...God's created thing. This is a gift from the One who submitted to that. Created to be...just a sign. A signal. A beacon...but of _all truth_.
And learned obedience through what He suffered (what He allowed God to do with him).
Take His life...and find out...He _gave it._


"And if you have not been faithful in the use of that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own?"


I tell you this desire to know comes from a place...not your own. It burns to light a way into all the unknowing, placed there till its work is perfect...even through perfect frustration. Be careful of falling to "I am willing to know all, relate to all...except...that" The thing yet working to an exclusion of that particular _that_ is terrified of your discovery that deliverance from him...will be seen in the submission of _that_ Other. Yes...there is an enemy of our soul.
He is liar, and father of them all.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> so you are saying that we have a salvation thru works.  That is totally opposite of what the Bible teaches.   The Bible teaches that no one can enter Heaven thru works, and any one that tries is like a thief.
> 
> Salvation is only thru believing that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to cover our sins, and no work or sacrifice we do can cover our sins.
> 
> I can only feel sad for this child. I am sorry his father squandered a future with his child for the pleasures of this world.  You might not like the teaching, but unless that man repented, the Bible teaches he will never spend eternity with God.



The Christian commandant ofAuschwitz spends eternity with god while his Jewish victims are cast in a lake of fire. Christians who fail to see a problem with this are not reasoning honestly about their religion.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> The Christian commandant ofAuschwitz spends eternity with god while his Jewish victims are cast in a lake of fire. Christians who fail to see a problem with this are not reasoning honestly about their religion.



One last time and I'm out of hear. The believer in Jesus Christ and what he did for you and me is the only way. So if the "commandant of Auschwitz" was a true believer, then yes he went to heaven. I have to wonder how a true believer would ever even think of such things but, and if the "his Jewish victims"did not believe then , yes they will be cast into the lake of fire along with satan.


----------



## NCHillbilly

And, once again it is reinforced:

If the Bible is true, God is guilty of creating flawed beings and then punishing them for being exactly how he created them to be. 

This is the thing that turned me away from Christianity to start with. Why worship a God who has worse morals than the beings he casts into eternal torment?


----------



## Israel

When the mind is given over to cleverness and subltelty things _plain_ seem subtle to the extreme of appearing non existent, yet things _subtle _(and non existent) seem so very plain.

There is a strict line that till seen is hardly, if at all, perceived. But once seen remains so very clear.
It is the divide between adoration and usurpation. The unequipped man has no strength in its throes.
And a man has either learned it...or not.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> One last time and I'm out of hear. The believer in Jesus Christ and what he did for you and me is the only way. So if the "commandant of Auschwitz" was a true believer, then yes he went to heaven. I have to wonder how a true believer would ever even think of such things but, and if the "his Jewish victims"did not believe then , yes they will be cast into the lake of fire along with satan.



That is the claim. Whether it is what one should expect from a perfect being or an evil monster is another matter.


----------



## atlashunter

NCHillbilly said:


> And, once again it is reinforced:
> 
> If the Bible is true, God is guilty of creating flawed beings and then punishing them for being exactly how he created them to be.
> 
> This is the thing that turned me away from Christianity to start with. Why worship a God who has worse morals than the beings he casts into eternal torment?



It’s turned a lot of folks away and the pope is well aware of it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> so you are saying that we have a salvation thru works.  That is totally opposite of what the Bible teaches.   The Bible teaches that no one can enter Heaven thru works, and any one that tries is like a thief.
> 
> Salvation is only thru believing that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to cover our sins, and no work or sacrifice we do can cover our sins.
> 
> I can only feel sad for this child. I am sorry his father squandered a future with his child for the pleasures of this world.  You might not like the teaching, but unless that man repented, the Bible teaches he will never spend eternity with God.



No, what I'm trying to figure out is how "works" is a part of Christianity especially as viewed by Catholicism. It must play some part because the Bible is full of verses a separating the evil people from the good. 

It's almost like it's two themes interconnected or paralleled when it comes to salvation. Otherwise why the parable of the sheep and the goats? The sheep were the ones who helped people and the goats never helped anyone yet we know that being good isn't a part of salvation by grace.

In Revelation people are judged by their works. I can still see this in other scriptures. A separation of man based on his works. Re-payed for our deeds, for everyone who does good. 

Yet I do see salvation through grace only as well. See my post 26. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. The man did get his children baptized. He must have felt some belief in doing so. He could have been called by God on his deathbed. Maybe he was given a measure of faith or a general calling and had his children baptized. He could have had his effective calling on his deathbed.

See my post 32;
Romans 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

We have no idea what kind of pottery the father became. Perhaps his son is a vessel of wrath.

Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

This from a man hours before his death. No lifetime of works. No baptism. No feeding the poor. No prayers after he died. I wasn't in the head of this child's father when he died. 

See my post 37
I believe that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.

Romans 11:33
Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!

This was said by Paul in relation to God electing a group of Jews and hardening the rest until the full number of Gentiles come in.

For God to need any help from the Pope's indulgences is out of the scope of my belief. 

My beliefs are a far cry from salvation by works. My beliefs require election from God so that's even farther from works than most Protestants as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Now we could say that works is the fruit of the Spirit. Still though salvation is of God. He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. 
What would we say of a person who believes Jesus died for his sins and doesn't help feed or cloth Jesus? Is he a Sheep or a Goat? Will he be judged for his works? 

I've tossed this in my head after reading James then Paul. I was to the point of believing Paul wasn't an apostle. I still struggle with the concept now and then.
Maybe this was Martin Luther's struggle as well. Maybe one has to just pick one over the other.

Then I was lead to Election which makes everything a whole lot easier. God get's to have mercy on whom he pleases. God gets to decide if he wanted to give the dying father the call. Not me, not the father, and not the Pope.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

atlashunter said:


> The Christian commandant ofAuschwitz spends eternity with god while his Jewish victims are cast in a lake of fire. Christians who fail to see a problem with this are not reasoning honestly about their religion.



no... what you don't comprehend is that how you die has nothing to do with how you live.

and who are you to judge where anyone spends eternity.  I am not the ultimate judge and neither are you.  God only knows these peoples heart and condition when they perished.


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> One last time and I'm out of hear. The believer in Jesus Christ and what he did for you and me is the only way. So if the "commandant of Auschwitz" was a true believer, then yes he went to heaven. I have to wonder how a true believer would ever even think of such things but, and if the "his Jewish victims"did not believe then , yes they will be cast into the lake of fire along with satan.





> So if the "commandant of Auschwitz" was a true believer, then yes he went to heaven. I have to wonder how a true believer would ever even think of such things but


To me its interesting that you view the commandant of Auschwitz in a negative light because obviously what he was responsible for was atrocious.
Yet you worship a god who is said to have performed an act that makes Auschwitz look like Disney Land.
Stacks of dead gassed folks and stacks of dead drowned folks are still stacks of dead folks.....
Yes a pretty harsh comparison but I think it gets the point across.
And keep in mind I don't believe God has been proven to exist so I don't actually think he did that. Its just how the story goes.


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> No doubt there are good people who go to our church that are not saved.  The only thing I know to do is to love them, share the truth as I know it, in love, and pray for them.  It is not my job to judge them or condemn them.
> 
> Beating people over the head with condemnation won't help anything, and will only cause division.  God calls us to relationship with Him and fellow believers.  He also calls us to love our neighbors.



What criteria have you used to determine that these good people in your church are not saved?
If you have decided they are not saved, and you feel the need to “share the truth” and pray for them, doesn’t that mean that you have already judged them and condemned them? 

Will whispering condemnation in someone’s ear cause less division than beating them over the head?
Isn’t subtle condemnation still condemnation-which comes as a result of judgement?



*


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ky55 said:


> What criteria have you used to determine that these good people in your church are not saved?
> If you have decided they are not saved, and you feel the need to “share the truth” and pray for them, doesn’t that mean that you have already judged them and condemned them?
> 
> Will whispering condemnation in someone’s ear cause less division than beating them over the head?
> Isn’t subtle condemnation still condemnation-which comes as a result of judgement?
> 
> 
> 
> *




I used statistics.  You know... Math... we have over 2800 people that go to our church.  Probability says there are probably a few of them that are not saved.  Some may even be there because they know they are not saved and need something more in their lives than what they have now.

Sharing truth with someone and praying for them is not condemnation.  It is love.  Do you think lying to someone is love?  Do you think that not praying for someone show concern and care for them?  God calls us all to treat our fellow man as we wish to be treated.  Do you think there is something wrong with doing this?

and having said this, if someone I care about is doing wrong, I will tell them that they are, and hope to convince them to do right. You probably will disagree with that, but consider this.... if you knew that your teenage child was considering shooting up a school, what would you do?  Keep quiet and mind your own business?  I doubt it.  You would warn them of the possible consequences and try to reason with them. You would try and get them help.  If every thing else failed, you would probably report them to authorities.  

That is what christians are called to do, warn others, try to get them help, and pray for them.(talking to a higher authority).

Unlike your accusation, Christians are not called to judge, condemn, or put down others.  Quit acting like we are.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I find quite a few references in the NT to the lake of fire. Many characterize it as a place of great suffering and everlasting punishment. I'm not aware of any scripture that indicates it is anything other than that. If some are simply to be destroyed once and for all and their suffering ended I wonder why their destination for that would be slated as an eternal lake of fire where we are told others will suffer forever and not explicitly told that some won't? It seems quite a stretch on that basis to say this is all just a mistranslation.
> 
> I think what you are fighting for is an improvement over what the scriptures tell us if we take them at face value. But I suspect it's not the message the authors of these books intended to convey.



Only good can come from people reinterpreting scripture to fit a secular, rationalist, humanist view. It keeps happening as each generation of unreasonable fundamentalists dies off. Christianity has been tamed by secularism pretty well though there's much more improvement to be made. Like I said, it will come with the deaths of the more fundamentalists.  The same strategy should be applied to Islam; show them how to reinterpret their scripture so that it reflects modern, secular values.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> no... what you don't comprehend is that how you die has nothing to do with how you live.
> 
> and who are you to judge where anyone spends eternity.  I am not the ultimate judge and neither are you.  God only knows these peoples heart and condition when they perished.



I’m judging the claims made by other fallible mortals such as myself. That’s who. Who is anyone who puts forward evil nonsense and proclaims it good to question the ability of others to form judgments of their own?


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> Only good can come from people reinterpreting scripture to fit a secular, rationalist, humanist view. It keeps happening as each generation of unreasonable fundamentalists dies off. Christianity has been tamed by secularism pretty well though there's much more improvement to be made. Like I said, it will come with the deaths of the more fundamentalists.  The same strategy should be applied to Islam; show them how to reinterpret their scripture so that it reflects modern, secular values.



That’s an improvement over fundamentalism. The problem is the religious texts are fixed and unchanging so the door is always open for fundamentalists to reclaim it from the revisionists.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> That’s an improvement over fundamentalism. The problem is the religious texts are fixed and unchanging so the door is always open for fundamentalists to reclaim it from the revisionists.



The hope is that they die off and take their fundamentalism with them.  They are truly beyond reforming. The texts are fixed but also weird enough to allow for interpretation.  Look how the believers here can't even agree.  The goal is support the guys that believe in metaphorical as opposed to literal translation.  Same with Islam.  There's enough wiggle room that believers might be convinced to reinterpret jihad as an inner, personal, spiritual struggle. Getting them some internet porn, Mickey D's and Mt. Dew would probably speed up the process.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

I'm don't know why their version of God would be so ticked off at what they believe or don't believe,  in this 100 year life span...that he would sentence them to everlasting suffering for ever, and ever, and ever, 1000 x our life and more. And.... created he11, as if he already knew what would happen???? That's like Santa Claus turning all the kids  blind that don't believe in him.


----------



## ambush80

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm don't know why their version of God would be so ticked off at what they believe or don't believe,  in this 100 year life span...that he would sentence them to everlasting suffering for ever, and ever, and ever, 1000 x our life and more. And.... created he11, as if he already knew what would happen???? That's like Santa Claus turning all the kids  blind that don't believe in him.



Preach on, brother.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm don't know why their version of God would be so ticked off at what they believe or don't believe,  in this 100 year life span...that he would sentence them to everlasting suffering for ever, and ever, and ever, 1000 x our life and more. And.... created he11, as if he already knew what would happen???? That's like Santa Claus turning all the kids  blind that don't believe in him.



Awesome analogy


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> Sharing truth with someone and praying for them is not condemnation.  It is love.



Projecting your unsupported imaginings onto others and expecting them to change their lives is neither truth nor love in my opinion.




NE GA Pappy said:


> You probably will disagree with that, but consider this.... if you knew that your teenage child was considering shooting up a school, what would you do?  Keep quiet and mind your own business?  I doubt it.  You would warn them of the possible consequences and try to reason with them. You would try and get them help.  If every thing else failed, you would probably report them to authorities.



It's actually kinda absurd to compare a doom-and-gloom fantasy situation to a real-life issue in the real world, but to answer your question-I would immediately go to the authorities.



NE GA Pappy said:


> That is what christians are called to do, warn others, try to get them help, and pray for them.(talking to a higher authority).



Imagining a divine calling to intercede on behalf of others, under the authority of an imaginary "higher authority", seems to be bordering on extremism to me.



NE GA Pappy said:


> Unlike your accusation, Christians are not called to judge, condemn, or put down others.  Quit acting like we are.



Somebody needs to send the memo out again, cause a bunch of folks didn't get it.
Judging and condemning is the foundation of the system.
Quit acting like you aren't.


----------



## Geezer Ray

I'm don't know why their version of God would be so ticked off at what they believe or don't believe, in this 100 year life span...that he would sentence them to everlasting suffering for ever, and ever, and ever, 1000 x our life and more. And.... created he11, as if he already knew what would happen???? That's like Santa Claus turning all the kids blind that don't believe in him.

This right here is a huge misunderstanding by non-believers. HE11 was never created for man, it was made for satan and his fallen angels. HE11 was increased in size after the fall of man in the Garden. Man was created perfect in the garden but disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge, so sin entered the world and here we are today. But God never created He11 for man.


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> I'm don't know why their version of God would be so ticked off at what they believe or don't believe, in this 100 year life span...that he would sentence them to everlasting suffering for ever, and ever, and ever, 1000 x our life and more. And.... created he11, as if he already knew what would happen???? That's like Santa Claus turning all the kids blind that don't believe in him.
> 
> This right here is a huge misunderstanding by non-believers. HE11 was never created for man, it was made for satan and his fallen angels. HE11 was increased in size after the fall of man in the Garden. Man was created perfect in the garden but disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge, so sin entered the world and here we are today. But God never created He11 for man.



How long ago did the garden and Adam and Eve exist? In years roughly..


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ky55 said:


> Somebody needs to send the memo out again, cause a bunch of folks didn't get it.
> Judging and condemning is the foundation of the system.
> Quit acting like you aren't.



maybe so.  The founder of our religion said 

'Love others as you love yourself'

' Treat people like you want to be treated'

' If you see someone in need, help them'

' If you are asked to walk a mile with someone, walk two miles instead'

' forgive people who hurt you'

' Don't let the day end and still be angry with someone'

' If you are praying and remember that someone is upset with you, go make it right with them'


Yep, sounds like a religion of hate, condemnation, and judgement to me.  Not.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> maybe so.  The founder of our religion said
> 
> 'Love others as you love yourself'
> 
> ' Treat people like you want to be treated'
> 
> ' If you see someone in need, help them'
> 
> ' If you are asked to walk a mile with someone, walk two miles instead'
> 
> ' forgive people who hurt you'
> 
> ' Don't let the day end and still be angry with someone'
> 
> ' If you are praying and remember that someone is upset with you, go make it right with them'
> 
> 
> Yep, sounds like a religion of hate, condemnation, and judgement to me.  Not.



Luke 19:27


----------



## Geezer Ray

The religion of hate was lead by a Man so full of hate He even died for the ones who ere executing Him. He took their place He had so much hate. Really, have any of the the non-believers ever even read the Bible? I am just curious because if I am presented with something I am not sure about I read up on it. There is a book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, I think that's how you spell it. Anyway he was an atheist who set out to prove Jesus did not exist and was not who he claimed to be and there was no God. In his years of research He became a Christian due to the facts that backed up what the Bible said. I am not judging anyone but really want people to see for themselves before they are mislead by others.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Luke 19:27



You can not take one verse out of the Bible and use it, you must read verses before and after to get the context of what is being said. You can cherry pick the Bible to read anyway you want it to. But, that doesn't change what God said.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> The religion of hate was lead by a Man so full of hate He even died for the ones who ere executing Him. He took their place He had so much hate. Really, have any of the the non-believers ever even read the Bible? I am just curious because if I am presented with something I am not sure about I read up on it. There is a book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, I think that's how you spell it. Anyway he was an atheist who set out to prove Jesus did not exist and was not who he claimed to be and there was no God. In his years of research He became a Christian due to the facts that backed up what the Bible said. I am not judging anyone but really want people to see for themselves before they are mislead by others.









I bet you think the mafia is a security service too.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> You can not take one verse out of the Bible and use it, you must read verses before and after to get the context of what is being said. You can cherry pick the Bible to read anyway you want it to. But, that doesn't change what God said.



What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Geezer Ray said:


> I'm don't know why their version of God would be so ticked off at what they believe or don't believe, in this 100 year life span...that he would sentence them to everlasting suffering for ever, and ever, and ever, 1000 x our life and more. And.... created he11, as if he already knew what would happen???? That's like Santa Claus turning all the kids blind that don't believe in him.
> 
> This right here is a huge misunderstanding by non-believers. HE11 was never created for man, it was made for satan and his fallen angels. HE11 was increased in size after the fall of man in the Garden. Man was created perfect in the garden but disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge, so sin entered the world and here we are today. But God never created He11 for man.


If God is "all knowing", then how did this happen. Just so you know, I am a devout believer in Jesus as the Son of God. I just don't adhere to the he11 doctrine. Have not seen you around here in these discussions before. Welcome


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> Yep, sounds like a religion of hate, condemnation, and judgement to me.  Not.


 
Uhhh, I think you have taken the liberty of adding the word “hate” to my comments about judgement and condemnation. 
I’m sure it was an unintentional mistake that could be easily corrected. 


*


----------



## Geezer Ray

1gr8bldr said:


> If God is "all knowing", then how did this happen. Just so you know, I am a devout believer in Jesus as the Son of God. I just don't adhere to the he11 doctrine. Have not seen you around here in these discussions before. Welcome



Thanks, this is the first time on these type threads been on the muzzleloader and hog hunting threads for a short time. These type discussions can get carried away so I don't want to offend anyone. Salvation and spiritual topics are very personal. It is fun to discuss without getting angry.


----------



## Geezer Ray

1gr8bldr said:


> If God is "all knowing", then how did this happen. Just so you know, I am a devout believer in Jesus as the Son of God. I just don't adhere to the he11 doctrine. Have not seen you around here in these discussions before. Welcome



Its called free will.  God allows us to think and choose.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Geezer Ray said:


> Thanks, this is the first time on these type threads been on the muzzleloader and hog hunting threads for a short time. These type discussions can get carried away so I don't want to offend anyone. Salvation and spiritual topics are very personal. It is fun to discuss without getting angry.


This is a good forum. Somehow, the core group here, with widely varying beliefs, manage to debate each other, yet remain respectful. But it is hard to do without offending, because many beliefs are offensive. It all adds up to thought provoking conversation


----------



## Artfuldodger

> This right here is a huge misunderstanding by non-believers. HE11 was never created for man, it was made for satan and his fallen angels. HE11 was increased in size after the fall of man in the Garden. Man was created perfect in the garden but disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge, so sin entered the world and here we are today. But God never created He11 for man.



I'm not sure that is a big misunderstanding. Most folks realize He!! was made for satan and his angels and not man.
I've never read about he11 expanding after the fall though. Could you show me a verse or two about it?

I did find Isaiah 5:14. Lots of variations on interpretations but not may say He11 enlarged itself. Most say it enlarged it's jaws, throat, appetite or desire. Even saying it was hungry. Nothing about the fall but verses before make it appear to be Israel, Jerusalem, or Zion. The folks in the town are wicked. 

Sheol has enlarged its throat and Jerusalem's splendor, her multitude, her din of revelry and the jubilant within her, descend into it.
Down go Zion's dignitaries, her masses, her crowds, and those who celebrate in her!
It gulps down the nobles of Jerusalem.

The grave's appetite increases. Maggots and worms will consume you.

This because the nobles in Zion did not pay attention to the deeds of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> Its called free will.  God allows us to think and choose.



Even with freewill God would still know that Adam would fall. He would already know that He11 would have to be large enough to accommodate man.

Remember the Word was with God before creation. He was already on standby for his future trip to the earth as a man.
The concept was in God's mind or Word. The Word was with God.

Just curious, if He11 had to be expanded, does that mean man will go there physically? I would think a lot of souls could fit in a spiritual place compared to a physical place. I could see why it would need to be expanded if literal.

Especially since it was "prepared" for evil spirits. Suddenly being expanded to take in resurrected humans. Might even have to add a little more sulfur.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Its called free will.  God allows us to think and choose.



How exactly does that work for all the unborn souls who find themselves in heaven through no doing of their own?


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> The founder of our religion



Are you referring to Paul?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ky55 said:


> Are you referring to Paul?
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/gWfOd-6pTNI



like that even deserves a response


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> like that even deserves a response



Have you watched the video?
The Rabbi is well respected in his field of study and he makes a very convincing case. 

So now I’m zero for 2 on responses?




ky55 said:


> Uhhh, I think you have taken the liberty of adding the word “hate” to my comments about judgement and condemnation.
> I’m sure it was an unintentional mistake that could be easily corrected.
> 
> 
> *


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Luke 19:27



Yes, Luke 19:27.

also Luke 14:26.


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> The religion of hate was lead by a Man so full of hate He even died for the ones who ere executing Him. He took their place He had so much hate. Really, have any of the the non-believers ever even read the Bible? I am just curious because if I am presented with something I am not sure about I read up on it. There is a book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, I think that's how you spell it. Anyway he was an atheist who set out to prove Jesus did not exist and was not who he claimed to be and there was no God. In his years of research He became a Christian due to the facts that backed up what the Bible said. I am not judging anyone but really want people to see for themselves before they are mislead by others.





> but really want people to see for themselves before they are mislead by others


I don't know if you are familiar with the cast of characters on this forum but nearly every one of us non-believers were believers  at one time. Grew up in the church, some had preacher fathers, are very familiar with the Bible and Christian history and have Christian family members....
My point being we have "seen for ourselves".


> Thanks, this is the first time on these type threads been on the muzzleloader and hog hunting threads for a short time. These type discussions can get carried away so I don't want to offend anyone. Salvation and spiritual topics are very personal. It is fun to discuss without getting angry.


With that type of attitude I hope you stick around.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Even with freewill God would still know that Adam would fall. He would already know that He11 would have to be large enough to accommodate man.
> 
> Remember the Word was with God before creation. He was already on standby for his future trip to the earth as a man.
> The concept was in God's mind or Word. The Word was with God.
> 
> Just curious, if He11 had to be expanded, does that mean man will go there physically? I would think a lot of souls could fit in a spiritual place compared to a physical place. I could see why it would need to be expanded if literal.
> 
> Especially since it was "prepared" for evil spirits. Suddenly being expanded to take in resurrected humans. Might even have to add a little more sulfur.


If He11 was created by an all knowing God, could there be a "suddenly"?
God didn't know he was going to eventually need a 4 bedroom he11 instead of a 1 bedroom?


----------



## Geezer Ray

Just curious, if He11 had to be expanded, does that mean man will go there physically? I would think a lot of souls could fit in a spiritual place compared to a physical place. I could see why it would need to be expanded if literal.

Yes,I believe physically because of the resurrected bodies. Sorry,  I wanted to put that in before I forgot but now I need to get ready for Sunday school. I shall return.


----------



## Israel

but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the gehenna; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the gehenna; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him.



Fear me and love me. Or else you’ll be sorry. Doesn’t sound like a healthy relationship.


----------



## welderguy

Israel said:


> Yes, Luke 19:27.
> 
> also Luke 14:26.



So much glorious hate.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Geezer Ray said:


> This right here is a huge misunderstanding by non-believers. HE11 was never created for man, it was made for satan and his fallen angels. HE11 was increased in size after the fall of man in the Garden. Man was created perfect in the garden but disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge, so sin entered the world and here we are today. But God never created He11 for man.



So, you take your little children and put them in a room. In the middle of the room, you put a pile of toys, cotton candy, and lollipops and tell them not to touch any of it, knowing that they certainly will. Then, when one of them sneaks a lollipop or plays with a toy, you light all of them on fire in retribution. And then go any light everybody else's kids that weren't even there on fire, too. Sounds perfectly fair to me.



Geezer Ray said:


> The religion of hate was lead by a Man so full of hate He even died for the ones who ere executing Him. He took their place He had so much hate. Really, have any of the the non-believers ever even read the Bible? I am just curious because if I am presented with something I am not sure about I read up on it. There is a book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, I think that's how you spell it. Anyway he was an atheist who set out to prove Jesus did not exist and was not who he claimed to be and there was no God. In his years of research He became a Christian due to the facts that backed up what the Bible said. I am not judging anyone but really want people to see for themselves before they are mislead by others.



I have read the Bible through several times. My dad was a Baptist preacher. I spent most of my life in church seemed like when I was growing up. Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, bible school, revivals, tent meetings, etc. etc.

The more I read the Bible, the more I realized that it couldn't be right, was full of contradictions and things that were impossible, instead of the opposite.



atlashunter said:


> Fear me and love me. Or else you’ll be sorry. Doesn’t sound like a healthy relationship.



In human terms, that is called a controlling, abusive relationship, and is illegal. The guy who treats his wife like that is reviled as evil and usually winds up in jail.


----------



## ky55

NCHillbilly said:


> In human terms, that is called a controlling, abusive relationship, and is illegal. The guy who treats his wife like that is reviled as evil and usually winds up in jail.



Yep. 

https://www.healthline.com/health/battered-woman-syndrome

Lots of similarities. 


*


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Fear me and love me. Or else you’ll be sorry. Doesn’t sound like a healthy relationship.





NCHillbilly said:


> So, you take your little children and put them in a room. In the middle of the room, you put a pile of toys, cotton candy, and lollipops and tell them not to touch any of it, knowing that they certainly will. Then, when one of them sneaks a lollipop or plays with a toy, you light all of them on fire in retribution. And then go any light everybody else's kids that weren't even there on fire, too. Sounds perfectly fair to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the Bible through several times. My dad was a Baptist preacher. I spent most of my life in church seemed like when I was growing up. Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, bible school, revivals, tent meetings, etc. etc.
> 
> The more I read the Bible, the more I realized that it couldn't be right, was full of contradictions and things that were impossible, instead of the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> In human terms, that is called a controlling, abusive relationship, and is illegal. The guy who treats his wife like that is reviled as evil and usually winds up in jail.



His ways are not our ways.  Who is the clay to judge the Potter?

Cause it's Sunday (I actually like this song)

This part in particular, which is curiously omitted from most versions for consumption:

_But we never can prove
  The delights of His love,
Until all on the altar we lay;
  For the favor He shows,
  And the joy He bestows,
Are for them who will trust and obey._



Full lyrics:

http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Trust_and_Obey/


----------



## NCHillbilly

ky55 said:


> Yep.
> 
> https://www.healthline.com/health/battered-woman-syndrome
> 
> Lots of similarities.
> 
> 
> *



Spot on.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> His ways are not our ways.  Who is the clay to judge the Potter?
> 
> Cause it's Sunday (I actually like this song)
> 
> This part in particular, which is curiously omitted from most versions for consumption:
> 
> _But we never can prove
> The delights of His love,
> Until all on the altar we lay;
> For the favor He shows,
> And the joy He bestows,
> Are for them who will trust and obey._
> 
> 
> 
> Full lyrics:
> 
> http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Trust_and_Obey/





> Who is the clay to judge the Potter?


I kind of despise that excuse.
Its such a cop out.
That is all


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I kind of despise that excuse.
> Its such a cop out.
> That is all



Funny thing is this comes from people who ask “what would Jesus do?” and say “God is good!”.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I kind of despise that excuse.
> Its such a cop out.
> That is all





atlashunter said:


> Funny thing is this comes from people who ask “what would Jesus do?” and say “God is good!”.



I know it's stupid to us but remember when you trusted and obeyed?  When it didn't make sense, you "Lay it at the foot of the cross"; you forget about it and stop thinking about it.  The "What would Jesus do?" folks would say that Jesus trusts and obeys (himself) and carries his burden.  It's really remarkable way to live. It relieves one of the many difficult philosophical and moral problems.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Mr. Hillbilly, from your previous post.

I have read the Bible through several times. My dad was a Baptist preacher. I spent most of my life in church seemed like when I was growing up. Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, bible school, revivals, tent meetings, etc. etc.

The more I read the Bible, the more I realized that it couldn't be right, was full of contradictions and things that were impossible, instead of the opposite.



In human terms, that is called a controlling, abusive relationship, and is illegal. The guy who treats his wife like that is reviled as evil and usually winds up in jail.[/QUOTE]

Thank You for helping me see my presumptive attitude. To all non-believers and or doubters, please accept my humble apology for assuming that you have never read or been exposed to the Good News about Jesus. A lot of naysayers I have talked with are almost completely without a clue and have not researched for themselves but just regurgitate what someone else says. Mainly it seems and again I remind myself that assuming puts an as. in front of u and me, they are afraid that if they believe then they wont be able to have fun. Because lets face it Sin is fun or it was for me and I was not a good person. I praise God for second chances. 
Any way off the soap box.  Thank you again and LESSON LEARNED.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Geezer Ray said:


> Thank You for helping me see my presumptive attitude. To all non-believers and or doubters, please accept my humble apology for assuming that you have never read or been exposed to the Good News about Jesus. A lot of naysayers I have talked with are almost completely without a clue and have not researched for themselves but just regurgitate what someone else says. Mainly it seems and again I remind myself that assuming puts an as. in front of u and me, they are afraid that if they believe then they wont be able to have fun. Because lets face it Sin is fun or it was for me and I was not a good person. I praise God for second chances.
> Any way off the soap box.  Thank you again and LESSON LEARNED.





I was extremely exposed to the Good News about Jesus. Repeatedly and continuously for many, many years. I also noticed how what people said and believed, and what people did were entirely different things for the most part. As far as just regurgitating what others have said, what so you call basing your whole life, morals, and every action you make on a 2,000 year old Jewish book written by a hundred different authors? 

Honest question: If you had grown up in India, what religion do you think you would be devoutly following right now, and believe it just as much as you believe your current one? What if you had been born in Thailand, or Yemen? I can answer that with about 99% certainty, but you wouldn't want to hear the answer.


----------



## Geezer Ray

You are correct in assuming that I would be following the religion of the area, unless. I was exposed to the Word by missionaries, possibly. Jesus commanded go and make disciples to the ends of the earth. There are many I am sure who have been converted. I can not prove it but am told that christianity is the fastest growing religion in say China and in other parts of the world. I admit it seems to be on the decline here in our blessed country but maybe being blessed as we are is part of the problem. No time to need God, we have it to good. Maybe.


----------



## Israel

welderguy said:


> So much glorious hate.



Yes. The exchanging of submission to a single voice in turn promotes singleness of eye...to see things so marvelous, (even as brother Paul...said, and encouraged in _his seeking_), that are too wondrous to comprehend to their depths.

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.


----------



## Geezer Ray

As far as............As far as just regurgitating what others have said, what so you call basing your whole life, morals, and every action you make on a 2,000 year old Jewish book written by a hundred different authors? 

A) Yes the book has many writers, but only one author.
B)It isn't just a Jewish book because even the rigid Jews reject part of the Book.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Geezer Ray said:


> The religion of hate was lead by a Man so full of hate He even died for the ones who ere executing Him. He took their place He had so much hate. Really, have any of the the non-believers ever even read the Bible? I am just curious because if I am presented with something I am not sure about I read up on it. There is a book "*The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel,* I think that's how you spell it. Anyway he was an atheist who set out to prove Jesus did not exist and was not who he claimed to be and there was no God. In his years of research He became a Christian due to the facts that backed up what the Bible said. I am not judging anyone but really want people to see for themselves before they are mislead by others.


I have not read the book, but I did recently see the movie. So full of holes. My wife said as I pointed them out, "you sound like you are on the atheist side". I said "no, but it's irresponsible to present these things as truth, with so many holes. We will never convert anyone to this, because all credability is lost." For example, the movie claimed over and over "we have over 500 people who saw him risen." Implying that is highly validated. Anybody whom would buy this is already a Christian, selling a book under false pretense. What we have is one author whom claims over 500 people saw him. So instead of validated by 500, we actually are validated by 1. Big difference. The movie also had a moving goal post as to it's proof. The sell, was if he was raised from the dead, then the logical conclusion was that there is a God. Which God then would that be? The movie is a total train wreck. I don't know about the book


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> As far as............As far as just regurgitating what others have said, what so you call basing your whole life, morals, and every action you make on a 2,000 year old Jewish book written by a hundred different authors?
> 
> A) Yes the book has many writers, but only one author.
> B)It isn't just a Jewish book because even the rigid Jews reject part of the Book.



Very problematic to claim it has one author. Have you read any books by New Testament textual critics?


----------



## ky55

atlashunter said:


> Very problematic to claim it has one author. Have you read any books by New Testament textual critics?



Like Bart Ehrman?

*


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> I know it's stupid to us but remember when you trusted and obeyed?  When it didn't make sense, you "Lay it at the foot of the cross"; you forget about it and stop thinking about it.  The "What would Jesus do?" folks would say that Jesus trusts and obeys (himself) and carries his burden.  It's really remarkable way to live. It relieves one of the many difficult philosophical and moral problems.



I suppose the question that WWJD suggests an answer to is, should our ways be modeled after his ways? If the answer to that is yes then the criticisms of his ways warrant an answer that goes beyond “his ways are not our ways”. Don’t tell me to model my life after someone and then when challenged on what that implies based on their behavior tell me I’m in no position to judge. This is what Sam Harris is talking about when he accuses Christians of playing tennis without the net.


----------



## atlashunter

ky55 said:


> Like Bart Ehrman?
> 
> *



Yep.


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> I have not read the book, but I did recently see the movie. So full of holes. My wife said as I pointed them out, "you sound like you are on the atheist side". I said "no, but it's irresponsible to present these things as truth, with so many holes. We will never convert anyone to this, because all credability is lost." For example, the movie claimed over and over "we have over 500 people who saw him risen." Implying that is highly validated. Anybody whom would buy this is already a Christian, selling a book under false pretense. What we have is one author whom claims over 500 people saw him. So instead of validated by 500, we actually are validated by 1. Big difference. The movie also had a moving goal post as to it's proof. The sell, was if he was raised from the dead, then the logical conclusion was that there is a God. Which God then would that be? The movie is a total train wreck. I don't know about the book



We have far more first hand accounts of the works of Sathya Sai Baba. Someone get the memo to Strobel so he can convert. Like you said, that claim only works on those who already believe.


----------



## atlashunter

I’ve also noticed William Lane Craig use that same circular logic for god. He argues that if god exists then the resurrection was not impossible but probable. Other times he argues we know there is a god because we know the resurrection happened.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Very problematic to claim it has one author. Have you read any books by New Testament textual critics?



Not problematic at all. All scripture in the Bible is the Word inspired by God.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Not problematic at all. All scripture in the Bible is the Word inspired by God.



So why were parts of it altered centuries after it was written and why are there contradictions? How many books written by New Testament textual critics have you read?


----------



## NCHillbilly

I have no doubt that Jesus was a good guy, if he existed and did as they said. A lot of what he did was in direct contradiction to what we are told to do by the rest of the Bible.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Geezer Ray said:


> You are correct in assuming that I would be following the religion of the area, unless. I was exposed to the Word by missionaries, possibly. Jesus commanded go and make disciples to the ends of the earth. There are many I am sure who have been converted. I can not prove it but am told that christianity is the fastest growing religion in say China and in other parts of the world. I admit it seems to be on the decline here in our blessed country but maybe being blessed as we are is part of the problem. No time to need God, we have it to good. Maybe.



You are one of the few folks I have met who will admit this. Most folks will deny it, and use the missionary excuse. But, if a Buddhist or Islamic  or Hindu missionary came here and tried to convert folks who were already raised and practicing and believing devout Christians, I doubt if many would leave Christianity and follow their teachings. I would guess that others are no different. 

Maybe God, if he/she/it exists,  isn't restricted to one religion, maybe he is the inspiration for all of them?


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> So why were parts of it altered centuries after it was written and why are there contradictions? How many books written by New Testament textual critics have you read?



Parts a rewritten by man to suit man, this does not change the true scripture and those doing the rewrite have the right to be wrong. Man made all kinds of laws thThe Bible teaches on false prophets and false doctrine. 
at God never commanded, because man has this hang up about how important he is or lets call it PRIDE.

If you will forgive my ignorance, I have read no books written by New Testament textual critics, at least I don't know if I have. Mainly because I don't know what a New Testament textual critic is. Sorry.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Parts a rewritten by man to suit man, this does not change the true scripture and those doing the rewrite have the right to be wrong. Man made all kinds of laws thThe Bible teaches on false prophets and false doctrine.
> at God never commanded, because man has this hang up about how important he is or lets call it PRIDE.
> 
> If you will forgive my ignorance, I have read no books written by New Testament textual critics, at least I don't know if I have. Mainly because I don't know what a New Testament textual critic is. Sorry.



The alterations are found in the KJV. If you’re not familiar with the work of scholars like Bart Ehrman then it’s a bit hasty to claim the Bible is infallible.

Just one example of many, how did Judas die?


----------



## atlashunter

Another example is the ending of Mark. The last verses in the KJV version of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts we have of Mark. So which is the “true scripture”? The KJV version of Mark? Or Mark as it was originally written?


----------



## ky55

Geezer Ray said:


> If you will forgive my ignorance, I have read no books written by New Testament textual critics, at least I don't know if I have. Mainly because I don't know what a New Testament textual critic is. Sorry.



If you'll watch this short video of an interview with Bart Ehrman you'll learn something new today.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> Another example is the ending of Mark. The last verses in the KJV version of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts we have of Mark. So which is the “true scripture”? The KJV version of Mark? Or Mark as it was originally written?


I have pondered Mark's ending abruptly. The last verses are clearly added later. Someone tried to fix the abrupt ending.  Since Mark was not writing in real time, as things happened, I have confidence that he did not just quit writing because Jesus died. He knew the story after as well as the beginning. So either someone did not like his ending... or it was lost. I put a lot of stock in the book of Mark, waaaaaaaaaay more than Matthew or Lukes copied embellished version of Mark. I would like to know what happened to the remaining of Mark.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

1gr8bldr said:


> I have pondered Mark's ending abruptly. The last verses are clearly added later. Someone tried to fix the abrupt ending.  Since Mark was not writing in real time, as things happened, I have confidence that he did not just quit writing because Jesus died. He knew the story after as well as the beginning. So either someone did not like his ending... or it was lost. I put a lot of stock in the book of Mark, waaaaaaaaaay more than Matthew or Lukes copied embellished version of Mark. I would like to know what happened to the remaining of Mark.




How do you feel about Luke's other book, Acts?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> The alterations are found in the KJV. If you’re not familiar with the work of scholars like Bart Ehrman then it’s a bit hasty to claim the Bible is infallible.
> 
> Just one example of many, how did Judas die?


On one hand I fear when people discover the truths of scripture..... on the other hand, one needs to deal with it now rather than later. Although, I will be the first to admit, that picking and chosing  from the bible what I believe is true and what is false is a slippery slope.  LOL, me and my dirt bike saw many of that today.


----------



## ky55

1gr8bldr said:


> I have pondered Mark's ending abruptly. The last verses are clearly added later. Someone tried to fix the abrupt ending.  Since Mark was not writing in real time, as things happened, I have confidence that he did not just quit writing because Jesus died. He knew the story after as well as the beginning. So either someone did not like his ending... or it was lost. I put a lot of stock in the book of Mark, waaaaaaaaaay more than Matthew or Lukes copied embellished version of Mark. I would like to know what happened to the remaining of Mark.




Did Mark actually write the gospel according to Mark?
There's a lot of evidence supporting the idea that *all *of the gospels were written by anonymous authors.

Your "copied" comment makes me think that you have seen the evidence supporting the idea that 60% of Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark?



*


----------



## ky55

1gr8bldr said:


> I have pondered Mark's ending abruptly. The last verses are clearly added later. Someone tried to fix the abrupt ending.  Since Mark was not writing in real time, as things happened, I have confidence that he did not just quit writing because Jesus died.


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> On one hand I fear when people discover the truths of scripture..... on the other hand, one needs to deal with it now rather than later. Although, I will be the first to admit, that picking and chosing  from the bible what I believe is true and what is false is a slippery slope.  LOL, me and my dirt bike saw many of that today.



Wasn’t that long ago I would have said such a fear is unfounded. We should never fear pursuing what is true over what is false. Now I’m not so sure. Christianity is dying a slow death in the West. Whether that is a good thing (even if the claims of Christianity are untrue) depends on what fills the void. So far what I see doesn’t inspire confidence.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

why would you care what fills the void if Christianity dies out in the west?  Are you saying that our country derives some benefits from Christians living in the USA?  If not, I don't understand the concern.  If the US does gain some benefit from its Christian members, then why do you and others spend so much time and effort trying to convince believers otherwise?  It seems to me that whether or not there is a benefit to the believer in the afterlife, we should encourage people to follow the teachings of Christ as a benefit to our country.


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> How do you feel about Luke's other book, Acts?



Was Luke actually the author of the book of Acts?

https://ehrmanblog.org/wrote-luke-acts-members/


----------



## 1gr8bldr

ky55 said:


> Did Mark actually write the gospel according to Mark?
> There's a lot of evidence supporting the idea that *all *of the gospels were written by anonymous authors.
> 
> Your "copied" comment makes me think that you have seen the evidence supporting the idea that 60% of Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark?
> 
> 
> 
> *


I have studied the contradictions in great detail. About 2 years of my life. It's an interesting study. Everything from context contradictions to location contradictions. The OT as well, especially the "doublets". And yet..... I still believe the core simple gospel found within the flawed, highly embellished book. No where can you see these truths better than in church. Just attend any church any sunday morning and you will see "everything is done for men to see. "


----------



## 1gr8bldr

ky55 said:


> Was Luke actually the author of the book of Acts?
> 
> https://ehrmanblog.org/wrote-luke-acts-members/


I think so, yet Luke writings are on the verge of straight out lies. No way that he knew Mary's so called song when she went to stay with John the baptist mother. Some will say, The HS inspired him, but that's not true either. He had a bad case of editorial fatigue when he copied from Mark. The HS would not have editirial fatigue. Luke is just making stuff up.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> why would you care what fills the void if Christianity dies out in the west?  Are you saying that our country derives some benefits from Christians living in the USA?  If not, I don't understand the concern.  If the US does gain some benefit from its Christian members, then why do you and others spend so much time and effort trying to convince believers otherwise?  It seems to me that whether or not there is a benefit to the believer in the afterlife, we should encourage people to follow the teachings of Christ as a benefit to our country.



It’s not all good or bad. It’s a mixed bag and the question of whether or not it is better than some alternative depends on what that alternative is. There are better alternatives and there are worse. I suspect most of the dumb masses will gravitate toward the worse. That has no bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. I think people as a general rule are better off the fewer falsehoods they believe. But human nature may be such that there are exceptions to that rule.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

atlashunter said:


> It’s not all good or bad. It’s a mixed bag and the question of whether or not it is better than some alternative depends on what that alternative is. There are better alternatives and there are worse. I suspect most of the dumb masses will gravitate toward the worse. That has no bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. I think people as a general rule are better off the fewer falsehoods they believe. But human nature may be such that there are exceptions to that rule.



I didn't ask whether you  believe Christain believes are true.  I asked did America benefit because there are Christian here as citizens, and if it does, why are atheists and agnostics hostile toward a religion that makes America better


----------



## 1gr8bldr

NE GA Pappy said:


> I didn't ask whether you  believe Christain believes are true.  I asked did America benefit because there are Christian here as citizens, and if it does, why are atheists and agnostics hostile toward a religion that makes America better


Because of the he11 sword that they wave around and the assumption that they are morally superior


----------



## NE GA Pappy

1gr8bldr said:


> Because of the he11 sword that they wave around and the assumption that they are morally superior



but, again, is America better off because the Christians are here, or not?


----------



## ky55

1gr8bldr said:


> Because of the he11 sword that they wave around and the assumption that they are morally superior



I agree with that statement, but I think I would change the  "assumption" that they are morally superior to the assertion that they are morally superior.

Piety, plain and simple.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

NE GA Pappy said:


> but, again, is America better off because the Christians are here, or not?


I'm not sure??? Statistics would tell. I know the divorce rate is said to be just as high. Not sure if that is true. Truth is, the JW's are some of the nicest people I have met. As far as giving, the Shriners and other secular groups waaaay out give the Christians in regards to helping people. Christians collect lots of money but it's used to build more collection sites. I suppose I would still answer yes to your question.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

my experience is that Christians, or at least the more dedicated ones, are honest dependable folks who look out for their fellow man.   

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> I didn't ask whether you  believe Christain believes are true.  I asked did America benefit because there are Christian here as citizens, and if it does, why are atheists and agnostics hostile toward a religion that makes America better



Better off relative to what? It all depends on that answer. It’s better relative to Islam or eliminating any concept of morality at all. It’s not better IMO than some of the Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers like the stoics. I’d much rather my kid get their moral lessons from Aesop’s fables than from the Old Testament.

 I’m hostile towards religion because I consider it a form of tyranny over the mind of man. And because I consider it detrimental to live life based on superstition rather than based on evidence and reason.

Like I said before, it’s a mixed bag with Christianity. You can find some good in it. But nothing good which is unique to Christianity. Could be worse and could be better. What I see the West adopting seems to be worse. Most people in the West can tell you far more about Bruce Jenner or Miley Cyrus than they can about Epicurus or Socrates and that’s a shame.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

NE GA Pappy said:


> my experience is that Christians, or at least the more dedicated ones, are honest dependable folks who look out for their fellow man.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.


I believe, although my beliefs differ, that Christians wholeheartedly want to serve God.  I believe they are good people as well. But I don't want to imply that they are much different than the secular world. I don't hold any anxiety towards them on an individual level. Just corporately. They want to do right, and comfort themselves that they do so, yet are far from the scripture teaching of Christ.  Don't resist someone whom wants to borrow from you. If they ask for a..... give it to them.... Whoever has left houses, wife, etc for my name..... and more. The book sets a high standard of living that we don't see displayed. And that's ok, as long as no one boasts that they are morally superior


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> my experience is that Christians, or at least the more dedicated ones, are honest dependable folks who look out for their fellow man.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.



Pappy, you like to paint all of the benefits of your Christianity with your broad brush.
Dial the clock back a few years and ask the few native Americans who are left about "Manifest Destiny" and the hand of Providence that delivered the blankets from the smallpox hospitals.


*


----------



## atlashunter

ky55 said:


> Pappy, you like to paint all of the benefits of your Christianity with your broad brush.
> Dial the clock back a few years and ask the few native Americans who are left about "Manifest Destiny" and the hand of Providence that delivered the blankets from the smallpox hospitals.
> 
> 
> *



What about Rome? They didn’t last long after adopting Christianity as the state sanctioned religion. Historians like Edward Gibbon have argued it contributed to Rome’s collapse.


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> but, again, is America better off because the Christians are here, or not?


Exactly how would one (including you) determine the answer to that question?
Wouldn't one have to know what America was like  without Christians to know which is "better"?
And wouldn't it depend on who you asked?


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe, although my beliefs differ, that Christians wholeheartedly want to serve God.  I believe they are good people as well. But I don't want to imply that they are much different than the secular world. I don't hold any anxiety towards them on an individual level. Just corporately. They want to do right, and comfort themselves that they do so, yet are far from the scripture teaching of Christ.  Don't resist someone whom wants to borrow from you. If they ask for a..... give it to them.... Whoever has left houses, wife, etc for my name..... and more. The book sets a high standard of living that we don't see displayed. And that's ok, as long as no one boasts that they are morally superior





> But I don't want to imply that they are much different than the secular world.


Yep. People are people. Good, bad or otherwise. Religious or not.


----------



## Geezer Ray

OK, I have watched the video concerning  Bart Ehrman. Mr. Ehrman is putting himself out as an expert who is claiming thing to be a fact . I am not strong enough in my education to debate what he says point by point, but, why is so much faith put in what he is saying and so little in what Bible scholars are saying? He was not there yet he absolutely declares what he thinks. I can not point by point prove my beliefs but my faith in God, I know and that I will absolutely declare. If it were possible that I am wrong in my faith, then when I die I am just as dead as non-believers. However if when I die, and I am right(which I am sure of) I certainly look forward to spending eternity with my Lord.  Just sayin.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> OK, I have watched the video concerning  Bart Ehrman. Mr. Ehrman is putting himself out as an expert who is claiming thing to be a fact . I am not strong enough in my education to debate what he says point by point, but, why is so much faith put in what he is saying and so little in what Bible scholars are saying? He was not there yet he absolutely declares what he thinks. I can not point by point prove my beliefs but my faith in God, I know and that I will absolutely declare. If it were possible that I am wrong in my faith, then when I die I am just as dead as non-believers. However if when I die, and I am right(which I am sure of) I certainly look forward to spending eternity with my Lord.  Just sayin.



Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar. I suspect much of your understanding of the Bible comes from Sunday school and not from textual critics who spend years studying ancient languages, the manuscripts, writing styles, etc.

The last part of your post is basically Pascal’s wager. It’s not a strong argument for faith for a number of reasons.

Did you see my questions concerning Judas and the book of Mark?


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> OK, I have watched the video concerning  Bart Ehrman. Mr. Ehrman is putting himself out as an expert who is claiming thing to be a fact . I am not strong enough in my education to debate what he says point by point, but, why is so much faith put in what he is saying and so little in what Bible scholars are saying? He was not there yet he absolutely declares what he thinks. I can not point by point prove my beliefs but my faith in God, I know and that I will absolutely declare. If it were possible that I am wrong in my faith, then when I die I am just as dead as non-believers. However if when I die, and I am right(which I am sure of) I certainly look forward to spending eternity with my Lord.  Just sayin.





> and so little in what Bible scholars are saying?


Lots of our arguments we use "against" the Christian's arguments here come straight from Bible scholars.
Bible scholars determinations of what scripture says/means varies widely.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> The alterations are found in the KJV. If you’re not familiar with the work of scholars like Bart Ehrman then it’s a bit hasty to claim the Bible is infallible.
> 
> Just one example of many, how did Judas die?



If you are speaking of the Judas which betrayed Jesus, then according to the gospel of Matthew 27: 5 he hanged himself. 

Also the little statement concerning right or wrong about after death is in no way meant to be a reason for faith. If that was your reason for faith you would be wrong. It's really all about Love because God is love.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Geezer Ray said:


> If you are speaking of the Judas which betrayed Jesus, then according to the gospel of Matthew 27: 5 he hanged himself.
> 
> Also the little statement concerning right or wrong about after death is in no way meant to be a reason for faith. If that was your reason for faith you would be wrong. It's really all about Love because God is love.



now he is going to argue with you that Luke says he fell and his guts burst from him. 

I don't see an issue with it myself.  It would seem to me that a person that had hung himself, stayed there in the heat for who knows how many hours and then was cut down might possibly burst open and all his guts splash around. Remember, Luke was a doctor.  He might have given us a bit more detail about the death.  But for the skeptic, they will try to point out that there is an error in the Bible because Mark says he was hanged, and Luke doesn't.    

Either way, Judas died and will be judge for his actions, just as we all will.


----------



## EverGreen1231

No one can say who is and ins't in heaven. I can say by the doctrine I learned as a child who is "supposed" to be there. I can say by Catholic doctrine who is "supposed" to be there. I can say by Mormon doctrine who is "supposed" to be there. Mileage may vary infinitely.

Who's to say what was in the man's heart and mind? I don't know and neither did the Pope. The Pope did the right thing by comforting the boy. There's no sense in torturing one's self over a question that cannot be answered.

What's worse, above all this, is that he lost his father at his age. That is devastating.


----------



## Geezer Ray

As far as your question about the book of Mark all I can say is I don't know. Sorry


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Exactly how would one (including you) determine the answer to that question?
> Wouldn't one have to know what America was like  without Christians to know which is "better"?
> And wouldn't it depend on who you asked?



Add to that the difficulty that Christians have with determining who is a REAL Christian.


----------



## j_seph

To be a scholar and taught by man or to be a born again Christian and taught by God's word through the holy spirit. Glad I did not put my faith in man to teach me what God can do so much better.


----------



## NCHillbilly

NE GA Pappy said:


> my experience is that Christians, or at least the more dedicated ones, are honest dependable folks who look out for their fellow man.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.



I agree with that. Most sincere Christians I know are for the most part folks that I would class as good people. 

What I disagree with is the assertion many Christians seem to believe: that there are no good or moral people who are not Christians.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> To be a scholar and taught by man or to be a born again Christian and taught by God's word through the holy spirit. Glad I did not put my faith in man to teach me what God can do so much better.


Let me guess.
The "scholars" who wrote the various books of the Bible were inspired by God but the scholars of today obviously aren't.
Right?
Because you know who God inspires and who he doesn't right?


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by NE GA Pappy
> my experience is that Christians, or at least the more dedicated ones, are honest dependable folks who look out for their fellow man.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.





NCHillbilly said:


> I agree with that. Most sincere Christians I know are for the most part folks that I would class as good people.
> 
> What I disagree with is the assertion many Christians seem to believe: that there are no good or moral people who are not Christians.


On the flip side "more dedicated" and "sincere" can be worse depending on how far you take it. 
Westboro Baptist and the dudes who did 9/11 could also be described as more dedicated and sincere.
I think I prefer the regular 'ol go to church on Sunday and sin on Monday kind of folks


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> Let me guess.
> The "scholars" who wrote the various books of the Bible were inspired by God but the scholars of today obviously aren't.
> Right?
> Because you know who God inspires and who he doesn't right?


When "scholars" as you call them wrote the various books of the bible were inspired by God I agree. Now you have scholars who keep trying to break down the word of God to mean something else. Sort of like we know the color Red is Red now someone trys to come by and say Red is not really red but is actually something else. Maybe we need a scholar to explain how in 3 different revivals at 3 different churches God is sending the same messages. From y'alls standpoint you would say coincidence I know or that all the preachers are meeting up to make it look as if God is talking to his people. God help that some of you UN-believers come to your senses at some point or another.


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> I didn't know money was involved with indulgences. I can see where the He11 scare would be needed.



Oh yes it is needed or there would be lots less Christians.

I have gotten into 'discussion' with bible folk that show up at my door. Usually, the last thing they say is "Why not just believe so you don't go to H3!!?"


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> To be a scholar and taught by man or to be a born again Christian and taught by God's word through the holy spirit. Glad I did not put my faith in man to teach me what God can do so much better.




You're claiming that a born again Christian can interpret the Bible better than a non-believer.  Don't you see how precarious that is?  People who claim that they have TRUE revelation are impossible to reason with.  They can are capable of anything without the possibility of reasoning with them.  You can't reason someone out of a position if they didn't use reason to arrive at their position.  That's a dangerous person.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Yep. People are people. Good, bad or otherwise. Religious or not.



"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. 

Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> When "scholars" as you call them wrote the various books of the bible were inspired by God I agree. Now you have scholars who keep trying to break down the word of God to mean something else. Sort of like we know the color Red is Red now someone trys to come by and say Red is not really red but is actually something else. Maybe we need a scholar to explain how in 3 different revivals at 3 different churches God is sending the same messages. From y'alls standpoint you would say coincidence I know or that all the preachers are meeting up to make it look as if God is talking to his people. God help that some of you UN-believers come to your senses at some point or another.





> Now you have scholars who keep trying to break down the word of God to mean something else.


There are about `40,000 Christian denominations.
Its not just scholars who don't agree on what it says.
These forums are filled with people who don't agree on what it says.
YOU don't agree with all Christians on what it says.
I don't think your point is real valid.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> I agree with that. Most sincere Christians I know are for the most part folks that I would class as good people.
> 
> What I disagree with is the assertion many Christians seem to believe: that there are no good or moral people who are not Christians.



I've seen many studies that show that Deists live longer, healthier, more fulfilled, more satisfying, more purposeful lives.  They deal with sickness and loss better and their children are more well behaved.  It's tough to navigate through life without a prepackaged dogma that tells you what and how to live.  It's hard to have to figure the big questions out yourself.  It's hard to have to say "I don't know" to questions that cut deep into one's psyche.  The uncertainty can lead people to some dark places. 

On the other hand, Deism can cause people to do some horrible things.  

Studies also show that dog owners experience an increase in well being in all the categories listed above without the need to believe in the supernatural.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I've always wondered if there were Latter Day scholars inspired to write using God's hand.
When and why did the inspired writing stop when it did?


----------



## Geezer Ray

NCHillbilly said:


> I agree with that. Most sincere Christians I know are for the most part folks that I would class as good people.
> 
> What I disagree with is the assertion many Christians seem to believe: that there are no good or moral people who are not Christians.



If you are meeting people who claim to be Christians with the attitudes that there are no good or moral people outside of Christianity. Then you are meeting people who are terribly missing the whole message of Christ. However should all Christians be lumped together with those people? Seems like you are using to broad a paint brush to me.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> On the flip side "more dedicated" and "sincere" can be worse depending on how far you take it.
> Westboro Baptist and the dudes who did 9/11 could also be described as more dedicated and sincere.
> I think I prefer the regular 'ol go to church on Sunday and sin on Monday kind of folks



They claim not to know who is a real Christian and who is not yet if pressed they will be able to make that declaration.  It's just a matter of degree.  They would never claim that they know whether or not a person who voted for Hillary Clinton is a real Christian.  But how about someone working on her campaign?  How about Hillary herself?  How about Barrack Obama?  How about Hitler?  They all claimed to be Christian.  Are they going to Heaven?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> You're claiming that a born again Christian can interpret the Bible better than a non-believer.  Don't you see how precarious that is?  People who claim that they have TRUE revelation are impossible to reason with.  They can are capable of anything without the possibility of reasoning with them.  You can't reason someone out of a position if they didn't use reason to arrive at their position.  That's a dangerous person.



If true then it would also take the Holy Spirit to open one's eyes to even realize the accounts were God inspired. Still though a Christian using the Holy Spirit would be be interpreting the writings of man. If it takes the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible then it has to be because man was involved in the writings. A kinda Catch 22.

More or less, man needs God to interpret the writings of God. It goes from God to man, written. Then man needing God to understand the writings of God because they were written by man.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> If you are meeting people who claim to be Christians with the attitudes that there are no good or moral people outside of Christianity. Then you are meeting people who are terribly missing the whole message of Christ. However should all Christians be lumped together with those people? Seems like you are using to broad a paint brush to me.



It's a mixed ideal even in Christianity. Some believe people are totally depraved and can't do any good deeds without God. Some believe they can't even hear the Gospel without God opening their eyes.

Some people believe morals come from God. Some believe they can come from just a belief in any god. They believe that if the atheist is moral, it is from being raised in a Christian nation or a Hindu nation. It's the morals from the god or God of your village that gives one morals.

Now getting back to Judas. Wasn't that his predestined purpose? If not Jesus couldn't die for our sins. What if Pharaoh's heart wasn't hardened? What if the Jews hearts weren't hardened?


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> When "scholars" as you call them wrote the various books of the bible were inspired by God I agree. Now you have scholars who keep trying to break down the word of God to mean something else. Sort of like we know the color Red is Red now someone trys to come by and say Red is not really red but is actually something else. Maybe we need a scholar to explain how in 3 different revivals at 3 different churches God is sending the same messages. From y'alls standpoint you would say coincidence I know or that all the preachers are meeting up to make it look as if God is talking to his people. God help that some of you UN-believers come to your senses at some point or another.



You're standard of proof is very low.  Would it surprise you to find that if you went to three, nay, 300 humanist/Atheist meetings that they all give the same message?  Your analogy of the color red misses and here's why.  The color red can be measured.  It an irrefutable fact.  Bible scholars make claims about all kinds of things that we know can't happen.  If you say "Well, I can't say for certain that they can't have happened" then you haven't stepped out of your box to examine the claims objectively.  You might make the same accusation of me.  I maintain that the likelihood of a resurrection is as great as if I dropped a rock and it fell up.  Does that put things in perspective?


----------



## ambush80

Geezer Ray said:


> If you are meeting people who claim to be Christians with the attitudes that there are no good or moral people outside of Christianity. Then you are meeting people who are terribly missing the whole message of Christ. However should all Christians be lumped together with those people? Seems like you are using to broad a paint brush to me.



It's impossible to tell who the REAL Christians are even for a Christian.  The best we can do is believe them and take them at their word.  Wesboro Baptist folks think they're loving their neighbor.  I can't seem to be able to argue with their position because that instruction is vague and because the Bible gives precedence for their behavior. God is not all lovey dovey all the time.  Sometimes he gets pretty mean, in a loving way.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> They claim not to know who is a real Christian and who is not yet if pressed they will be able to make that declaration.  It's just a matter of degree.  They would never claim that they know whether or not a person who voted for Hillary Clinton is a real Christian.  But how about someone working on her campaign?  How about Hillary herself?  How about Barrack Obama?  How about Hitler?  They all claimed to be Christian.  Are they going to Heaven?



Or just being a Democrat knowing how they feel about abortions. Or just being a Republican knowing their stance of feeding and clothing Jesus.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

NCHillbilly said:


> I agree with that. Most sincere Christians I know are for the most part folks that I would class as good people.
> 
> What I disagree with is the assertion many Christians seem to believe: that there are no good or moral people who are not Christians.



I know of a few people who I would say are good moral people who don't claim to be christians.  They wouldn't steal from you if you left a 100 dollars laying on a table kinda folks.  I would also say the majority of people would snatch that 100 right off the table the minute your back was turned, and never think twice about it.

I would even say there are some who claim to be christians that would take that money.  All of them would try to justify why the took it, but regardless, it is still stealing.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> now he is going to argue with you that Luke says he fell and his guts burst from him.
> 
> I don't see an issue with it myself.  It would seem to me that a person that had hung himself, stayed there in the heat for who knows how many hours and then was cut down might possibly burst open and all his guts splash around. Remember, Luke was a doctor.  He might have given us a bit more detail about the death.  But for the skeptic, they will try to point out that there is an error in the Bible because Mark says he was hanged, and Luke doesn't.
> 
> Either way, Judas died and will be judge for his actions, just as we all will.



It’s two different accounts of his death. We already know from both the gospels and non canonical gospels that the oral traditions on which they were based contain contradictions and embellishments. Is this what one should expect from an inerrant work authored by an infallible creator of the universe? Or is it what one should expect of humans?


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> If true then it would also take the Holy Spirit to open one's eyes to even realize the accounts were God inspired. Still though a Christian using the Holy Spirit would be be interpreting the writings of man. If it takes the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible then it has to be because man was involved in the writings. A kinda Catch 22.
> 
> More or less, man needs God to interpret the writings of God. It goes from God to man, written. Then man needing God to understand the writings of God because they were written by man.



Quite an elite group of people, no?  

They received a holy message and it can only be interpreted by people who received holy discernment power.  Further more, the special discernment power may have only be given to a select few that were predetermined.   It seems like there's no point in trying to discuss scripture if you don't have those gifts.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> As far as your question about the book of Mark all I can say is I don't know. Sorry



If you don’t know (and that’s a good honest answer) how can you claim with confidence the Bible is inerrant? Is the claim based on an objective look at the available evidence? Or is it based on a hope?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

atlashunter said:


> It’s two different accounts of his death. We already know from both the gospels and non canonical gospels that the oral traditions on which they were based contain contradictions and embellishments. Is this what one should expect from an inerrant work authored by an infallible creator of the universe? Or is it what one should expect of humans?



I don't believe it is 2 different accounts of his death.  I think it is the same account, explained by 2 different people.  One sufficed it to say he hung himself.  The other tells of the gruesome details of what happened to his body.  I can see how you might come to the conclusion you did, and I hope you can see how I came to my conclusions.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

j_seph said:


> To be a scholar and taught by man or to be a born again Christian and taught by God's word through the holy spirit. Glad I did not put my faith in man to teach me what God can do so much better.


With all due respect, and I really mean that, Textural critics don't question the content as valid in terms of context regarding that to be learned... or gleaned from the scriptures. They focus on discrepancies found in earlier texts verses our modern day versions. Such as the earliest manuscripts found don't include the last verses of Mark. And revelations such as the dead sea scrolls. It was always thought that the book of Enoch was later and took 100 plus sayings from Matthew but the discovery of the dead sea scrolls revealed it was the other way around. They have their reputation at stake so rarely ever go to far out on a limb, usually sticking to only that which can be substantiated. Bart Erhman, bible historian, has a book, even though he is a non believer, building the case that it's very likely that Jesus was a real figure, had a real following, not a mythology.  He makes a strong case. These things can be controversial, but they are super interesting.


----------



## j_seph

j_seph said:


> To be a scholar and taught by man or to be a born again Christian and *taught by God's word through the holy spirit*. Glad I did not put my faith in man to teach me what God can do so much better.





ambush80 said:


> You're *claiming that a born again Christian can interpret the Bible better than a non-believer.*  Don't you see how precarious that is?  People who claim that they have TRUE revelation are impossible to reason with.  They can are capable of anything without the possibility of reasoning with them.  You can't reason someone out of a position if they didn't use reason to arrive at their position.  That's a dangerous person.


I said the Holy Spirit, not a born again Christian. How can a non-believer interpret Gods word when he/she does not believe in God to begin with. Why would God even reveal his word to anyone who is committing or has committed blasphemy and denies him. They have already made their decision and refused him so what help would he be or his word if you have no desire to talk to the one the word came from to begin with and seek him?


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Or just being a Democrat knowing how they feel about abortions. Or just being a Republican knowing their stance of feeding and clothing Jesus.



Exactly.  It seems to me that a secular/humanist approach to those issues in particular is better than a religious one.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> Quite an elite group of people, no?
> 
> They received a holy message and it can only be interpreted by people who received holy discernment power.  Further more, the special discernment power may have only be given to a select few that were predetermined.   It seems like there's no point in trying to discuss scripture if you don't have those gifts.



Worship a God who can't communicate his message to all mankind without the help of his own flawed creation? 
I'll pass.


----------



## ambush80

NE GA Pappy said:


> I know of a few people who I would say are good moral people who don't claim to be christians.  They wouldn't steal from you if you left a 100 dollars laying on a table kinda folks.  I would also say the majority of people would snatch that 100 right off the table the minute your back was turned, and never think twice about it.
> 
> I would even say there are some who claim to be christians that would take that money.  All of them would try to justify why the took it, but regardless, it is still stealing.



Christians I've known say that being a Christian isn't about becoming sinless. it's about being saved.  That means going to Heaven.  That's the draw.  Seems carnal to me.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> To be a scholar and taught by man or to be a born again Christian and taught by God's word through the holy spirit. Glad I did not put my faith in man to teach me what God can do so much better.



That’s a retreat from claiming the Bible is inerrant to a claim that is neither verifiable or falsifiable. It is curious though that the HS apparently leads so many people to so many different conclusions. One could reasonably conclude such an outcome is the result of an author of confusion.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> I said the Holy Spirit, not a born again Christian. How can a non-believer interpret Gods word when he/she does not believe in God to begin with. Why would God even reveal his word to anyone who is committing or has committed blasphemy and denies him. They have already made their decision and refused him so what help would he be or his word if you have no desire to talk to the one the word came from to begin with and seek him?



So what does the HS teach you about the ending of Mark?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

1gr8bldr said:


> With all due respect, and I really mean that, Textural critics don't question the content as valid in terms of context regarding that to be learned... or gleaned from the scriptures. They focus on discrepancies found in earlier texts verses our modern day versions. Such as the earliest manuscripts found don't include the last verses of Mark. And revelations such as the dead sea scrolls. It was always thought that the book of Enoch was later and took 100 plus sayings from Matthew but the discovery of the dead sea scrolls revealed it was the other way around. They have their reputation at stake so rarely ever go to far out on a limb, usually sticking to only that which can be substantiated. Bart Erhman, bible historian, has a book, even though he is a non believer, building the case that it's very likely that Jesus was a real figure, had a real following, not a mythology.  He makes a strong case. These things can be controversial, but they are super interesting.


I am not correct here. Some do point out doctrine discrepancies


----------



## ambush80

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't believe it is 2 different accounts of his death.  I think it is the same account, explained by 2 different people.  One sufficed it to say he hung himself.  The other tells of the gruesome details of what happened to his body.  I can see how you might come to the conclusion you did, and I hope you can see how I came to my conclusions.



I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.  

What would you say to someone who has a hard time with the supernatural claims of the Bible?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> It's impossible to tell who the REAL Christians are even for a Christian.  The best we can do is believe them and take them at their word.  Wesboro Baptist folks think they're loving their neighbor.  I can't seem to be able to argue with their position because that intruction is vague and because the Bible gives precedence to their behavior. God is not all loved dovey all the time.  Sometimes he gets pretty mean, in a loving way.



...


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ambush80 said:


> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
> 
> What would you say to someone who has a hard time with the supernatural claims of the Bible?



I would say they have the same issue I have with the claims of the earth being billions of years old, and that the dinosaurs roamed it millions of years ago.

People are going to believe what they want to believe.  If you choose to believe that chocolate chip cookies are the most gross food ever created, I can't help you, especially when I could eat a 20 pound box of them in one sitting.

If you choose to believe that you are a random selection of DNA that inhabits this sphere ( or disc, if you are a flat earth believer), and there was no supernatural happenings that put it all together, so be it.  

I choose to believe that an all powerful God placed all this here, and that He controls it.  I happen to be one of His creations, and He has a purpose for me being here, in this location at this time.  I choose to serve Him and not myself.  If that is wrong, I will have to live with the errors of my believe. Just as you will have to deal with the errors of your beliefs if you happen to be wrong.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> ...



And only YOU can tell when you're walking in the spirit just right.  That makes you special and beyond reproach.


----------



## ambush80

NE GA Pappy said:


> I would say they have the same issue I have with the claims of the earth being billions of years old, and that the dinosaurs roamed it millions of years ago.
> 
> People are going to believe what they want to believe.  If you choose to believe that chocolate chip cookies are the most gross food ever created, I can't help you, especially when I could eat a 20 pound box of them in one sitting.
> 
> If you choose to believe that you are a random selection of DNA that inhabits this sphere ( or disc, if you are a flat earth believer), and there was no supernatural happenings that put it all together, so be it.
> 
> I choose to believe that an all powerful God placed all this here, and that He controls it.  I happen to be one of His creations, and He has a purpose for me being here, in this location at this time.  I choose to serve Him and not myself.  If that is wrong, I will have to live with the errors of my believe. Just as you will have to deal with the errors of your beliefs if you happen to be wrong.



You don't see a distinction between the assertions about the of the age of the Earth and the existence of dinosaurs based on evidence from astronomy, cosmology, physics, archeology, chemistry, biology and a host of other sciences, and the assertion that a human rose from the grave three days after death and then flew into the sky?  Even though those assertions are based solely on a kooky book that claims that only 500 people saw it happen and that that kooky book is the only source of evidence for that claim?

People will believe what they will but some people want their beliefs based on something more substantial than revelation; something measurable and tangible.  I don't subscribe to some theories put forth by cosmologists, but I respect the method by which they've come to their conclusions. Further more, they don't claim their conclusions to be timeless and inerrant truths.

What you're really talking about is a matter of taste, which in my opinion is the wrong metric to use to talk about claims that can be verified by rational inquiry.


----------



## atlashunter

Here’s another one about Judas. What did he do with the money he got from betraying Jesus? Acts says he used it to buy a field. Matthew says he returned it to the priests who had paid him. Which is it?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> I said the Holy Spirit, not a born again Christian. How can a non-believer interpret Gods word when he/she does not believe in God to begin with. Why would God even reveal his word to anyone who is committing or has committed blasphemy and denies him. They have already made their decision and refused him so what help would he be or his word if you have no desire to talk to the one the word came from to begin with and seek him?





> Why would God even reveal his word to anyone who is committing or has committed blasphemy and denies him


. 
What type of people did Jesus minister to?


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> .
> What type of people did Jesus minister to?



People like Saul but it took God's call to make him Paul. Well people don't need a doctor.

Could Saul not understand scripture? Was he totally depraved?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

WaltL1 said:


> .
> What type of people did Jesus minister to?



Jesus ministered to sinners. Tax collectors, adulterers, prostitutes, harlots, liars, cheaters, thieves and even the preachers of that day.

He loved them all, and spent time with them


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> People like Saul but it took God's call to make him Paul. Well people don't need a doctor.
> 
> Could Saul not understand scripture? Was he totally depraved?



He was one of the most educated people in his day.  It is said that he spoke more than 7 languages, and he wrote 13 and possibly 14 books of the New Testament.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Here’s another one about Judas. What did he do with the money he got from betraying Jesus? Acts says he used it to buy a field. Matthew says he returned it to the priests who had paid him. Which is it?



Personally I believe he gave it back out of remorse for what he did. I also believe Acts is saying the field was purchased with wages acquired by his sin but not that he himself went and paid for it.


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> Jesus ministered to sinners. Tax collectors, adulterers, prostitutes, harlots, liars, cheaters, thieves and even the preachers of that day.
> 
> He loved them all, and spent time with them


Yep that's my point.


> Why would God even reveal his word to anyone who is committing or has committed blasphemy and denies him


Blasphemers and deniers fit right in there with the rest of the sinners.
Im assuming Jesus was revealing God's word to them.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

WaltL1 said:


> Yep that's my point.
> 
> Blasphemers and deniers fit right in there with the rest of the sinners.
> Im assuming Jesus was revealing God's word to them.



Jesus was revealing God to them, but mostly they didn't understand.  The Bible relates several places where Jesus took the disciples off to themselves and explained to them the lessons he was trying to teach.

Do you think blasphemers and deniers are capable of interpreting the scriptures and giving insight into the deeper meanings of the Bible?


----------



## ambush80

NE GA Pappy said:


> Jesus was revealing God to them, but mostly they didn't understand.  The Bible relates several places where Jesus took the disciples off to themselves and explained to them the lessons he was trying to teach.
> 
> Do you think blasphemers and deniers are capable of interpreting the scriptures and giving insight into the deeper meanings of the Bible?



If I may enter the discussion, I believe that anyone can read the Bible and try to understand it to the best of their abilities.  I believe that certain types of individuals will claim that they have received supernatural guidance; discernment, that makes them feel as if they understand it "correctly".  Is that accurate or hyperbole?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> And only YOU can tell when you're walking in the spirit just right.  That makes you special and beyond reproach.



Not just me. The Spirit also.

Romans 8:16
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Thanks for thinking I'm special. That's a nice compliment.
I'm redeemed, so yes, that is very special.

Psalm 107:2
2 Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy;


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> He was one of the most educated people in his day.  It is said that he spoke more than 7 languages, and he wrote 13 and possibly 14 books of the New Testament.



13

3 of the 13 are questionable, and 3 are believed by a majority of scholars to be forgeries. 

*


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Personally I believe he gave it back out of remorse for what he did. I also believe Acts is saying the field was purchased with wages acquired by his sin but not that he himself went and paid for it.



What verse in Acts leads you to either of those conclusions?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ambush80 said:


> If I may enter the discussion, I believe that anyone can read the Bible and try to understand it to the best of their abilities.  I believe that certain types of individuals will claim that they have received supernatural guidance; discernment, that makes them feel as if they understand it "correctly".  Is that accurate or hyperbole?



there is no doubt in my mind that the HS will lead us into a deeper understanding as we study and apply the teachings of the Bible.  The more I read, the more I study, and mostly, the more I apply what I understand, the more I glean from the Bible.  If you read Deut. 8:8, it probably doesn't mean a whole lot to you, but if you understand the jewish feasts and how that ties in with modern day Christianity, then that verse holds an immense amount of information and enlightenment.

Do I think an unbeliever has the ability to understand the deeper meanings of the Bible?  No

Can an unbeliever read the Bible and try to understand?  Sure. Most of it will be like a 6th grader reading a post graduate physics book and trying to understand it though.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ky55 said:


> 13
> 
> 3 of the 13 are questionable, and 3 are believed by a majority of scholars to be forgeries.
> 
> *



I really don't care what most scholars say.   Most scholars say that the resurrection didn't happen, that creation couldn't have happened the way scripture proclaims and that the idea of a worldwide flood is crazy. 

I choose to believe the Bible and what it says.

You believe what you choose to believe.


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> Jesus was revealing God to them, but mostly they didn't understand.  The Bible relates several places where Jesus took the disciples off to themselves and explained to them the lessons he was trying to teach.
> 
> Do you think blasphemers and deniers are capable of interpreting the scriptures and giving insight into the deeper meanings of the Bible?


Well.....
If we are ALL sinners then every person who ever picked up the Bible is just as capable of interpreting as anybody else.

Do you think God's word is only for perfect people who already believe it?


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> there is no doubt in my mind that the HS will lead us into a deeper understanding as we study and apply the teachings of the Bible.  The more I read, the more I study, and mostly, the more I apply what I understand, the more I glean from the Bible.  If you read Deut. 8:8, it probably doesn't mean a whole lot to you, but if you understand the jewish feasts and how that ties in with modern day Christianity, then that verse holds an immense amount of information and enlightenment.
> 
> Do I think an unbeliever has the ability to understand the deeper meanings of the Bible?  No
> 
> Can an unbeliever read the Bible and try to understand?  Sure. Most of it will be like a 6th grader reading a post graduate physics book and trying to understand it though.


Do you think a vegetarian can read and understand a recipe for meatloaf?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Not just me. The Spirit also.
> 
> Romans 8:16
> 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
> 
> Thanks for thinking I'm special. That's a nice compliment.
> I'm redeemed, so yes, that is very special.
> 
> Psalm 107:2
> 2 Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy;



YOU think you're special.  That makes you a bit dangerous.  You think your insight into the will of God leads you to do righteous things.  I think you're just a regular guy.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> YOU think you're special.  That makes you a bit dangerous.  You think your insight into the will of God leads you to do righteous things.  I think you're just a regular guy.



How exactly do you perceive me as dangerous?
 I believe in trying to be "wise as serpents but harmless as doves".
I wouldn't harm a hair on your head, I assure you. (I might bore you to death, but that's about it).


----------



## NE GA Pappy

WaltL1 said:


> Do you think a vegetarian can read and understand a recipe for meatloaf?



do you think they could taste it and proclaim it good or bad?


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> there is no doubt in my mind that the HS will lead us into a deeper understanding as we study and apply the teachings of the Bible.  The more I read, the more I study, and mostly, the more I apply what I understand, the more I glean from the Bible.  If you read Deut. 8:8, it probably doesn't mean a whole lot to you, but if you understand the jewish feasts and how that ties in with modern day Christianity, then that verse holds an immense amount of information and enlightenment.
> 
> Do I think an unbeliever has the ability to understand the deeper meanings of the Bible?  No
> 
> Can an unbeliever read the Bible and try to understand?  Sure. Most of it will be like a 6th grader reading a post graduate physics book and trying to understand it though.



I’m seeing a lot of assertions of a better understanding but no demonstration of it. Where’s the beef?


----------



## atlashunter

atlashunter said:


> So what does the HS teach you about the ending of Mark?


----------



## ambush80

NE GA Pappy said:


> there is no doubt in my mind that the HS will lead us into a deeper understanding as we study and apply the teachings of the Bible.  The more I read, the more I study, and mostly, the more I apply what I understand, the more I glean from the Bible.  If you read Deut. 8:8, it probably doesn't mean a whole lot to you, but if you understand the jewish feasts and how that ties in with modern day Christianity, then that verse holds an immense amount of information and enlightenment.
> 
> Do I think an unbeliever has the ability to understand the deeper meanings of the Bible?  No
> 
> Can an unbeliever read the Bible and try to understand?  Sure. Most of it will be like a 6th grader reading a post graduate physics book and trying to understand it though.




People who believe that they are receiving instruction from God are potentially more dangerous than the average bear and at very least are a hinderance to secular, rational advancements; the kind that took us out of the dark ages. 

It's funny that you think receiving discernment elevates one's comprehension from 6th grade level to doctorate level without any effort.  That's one of the appeals that draws uneducated youths from the Middle East to radical Islamism.  All of a sudden they have revelation and are experts in spiritual matters.  If not experts, at least better qualified to interpret scripture than the lowly heretics.  Look at it manifest here sometimes.  A guy will come in that hasn't read the Bible and doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" and will talk about non-believers not having any good "since" but he is, by God, touched and blessed with understanding. 

DAN-GER-OUS.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Well.....
> If we are ALL sinners then every person who ever picked up the Bible is just as capable of interpreting as anybody else.
> 
> Do you think God's word is only for perfect people who already believe it?



Great point.


----------



## ambush80

NE GA Pappy said:


> I really don't care what most scholars say.   Most scholars say that the resurrection didn't happen, that creation couldn't have happened the way scripture proclaims and that the idea of a worldwide flood is crazy.
> 
> I choose to believe the Bible and what it says.
> 
> You believe what you choose to believe.



If I may summarize what you're saying, You don't care about the efforts of people who try to understand the world through logic and reason.  You prefer to believe what it says in a strange book and the "God given" discernment that you believe you have received.

Is that about right or does it lack nuance?


----------



## NCHillbilly

If God came down tomorrow and stood with one foot on Clingman's Dome and the other on top of Mt. Leconte and hollered out what he wanted, I would do it down to the letter.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> How exactly do you perceive me as dangerous?
> I believe in trying to be "wise as serpents but harmless as doves".
> I wouldn't harm a hair on your head, I assure you. (I might bore you to death, but that's about it).



If that "voice in your head" told you to do something you would do it like a lap dog; like Abraham.  If I heard a voice like that I would go to the doctor.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

WaltL1 said:


> Well.....
> If we are ALL sinners then every person who ever picked up the Bible is just as capable of interpreting as anybody else.
> 
> Do you think God's word is only for perfect people who already believe it?


Truth is, an unbiased person can interpret the bible better than a believer. Reason... because words mean things. There is no religious liberty in interpretation. Definitions can not be changed. That's why they have the "wild card" of speaking in tounges. They can have one of their own interpret and we can't debate it. But in English or Greek, it's like numerical values, it is what it is. No HS needed


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> If God came down tomorrow and stood with one foot on Clingman's Dome and the other on top of Mt. Leconte and hollered out what he wanted, I would do it down to the letter.



What if was a giant alien that said it was God?  How would you know the difference and would it make any difference?  If it said "kneel before me and declare me God" I might be inclined to fight back.  What kind of good guy would demand such a thing?

If it said "I'm here to teach you how to love each other and to suggest to you how to live; no strings attached" I might be more inclined to listen.  I still might not call it God, though.  I don't think a good guy would care.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

NCHillbilly said:


> If God came down tomorrow and stood with one foot on Clingman's Dome and the other on top of Mt. Leconte and hollered out what he wanted, I would do it down to the letter.


LOL, I have always said that if God came to me and asked me to build an Ark, I would say do you want me to build it out of wood or metal? But if he came in a dream... I would say, hmmm that was a weird dream


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> do you think they could taste it and proclaim it good or bad?


Revisit your premise. Its about reading and understanding. 


> Can an unbeliever read the Bible and try to understand? Sure. Most of it will be like a 6th grader reading a post graduate physics book and trying to understand it though.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ambush80 said:


> If I may summarize what you're saying, You don't care about the efforts of people who try to understand the world through logic and reason.  You prefer to believe what it says in a strange book and the "God given" discernment that you believe you have received.
> 
> Is that about right or does it lack nuance?



no, it is completely wrong.

You can read and study and do all you want as an unbeliever, but you will never have the understanding of the scripture that a believer that reads and studys as much as you did.


----------



## ambush80

1gr8bldr said:


> Truth is, an unbiased person can interpret the bible better than a believer. Reason... because words mean things. There is no religious liberty in interpretation. Definitions can not be changed. That's why they have the "wild card" of speaking in tounges. They can have one of their own interpret and we can't debate it. But in English or Greek, it's like numerical values, it is what it is. No HS needed




I agree mostly, but words are very different than numbers, particularly when you start stringing them together.  Regardless, can you imagine someone claiming they are using "revealed" math?  In a sense, that's what they're doing when they make a claim about the physical world that defies Natural law.  The Earth stopping requires "revealed" math.  I don't get how someone would want to live that way.


----------



## ky55

ambush80 said:


> If I may summarize what you're saying, You don't care about the efforts of people who try to understand the world through logic and reason.  You prefer to believe what it says in a strange book and the "God given" discernment that you believe you have received.
> 
> Is that about right or does it lack nuance?



I think that’s the way it is, because it’s the only way they can make it work. 
When you add the secret Bible decoder ring into the mix it makes for a foolproof system. 

*


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> If I may summarize what you're saying, You don't care about the efforts of people who try to understand the world through logic and reason.  You prefer to believe what it says in a strange book and the "God given" discernment that you believe you have received.
> 
> Is that about right or does it lack nuance?





NE GA Pappy said:


> no, it is completely wrong.
> 
> You can read and study and do all you want as an unbeliever, but you will never have the understanding of the scripture that a believer that reads and studys as much as you did.



Does anyone see any difference between what I said and what Pappy said?

Does a brand new Born Again Christian understand the Bible better than me if we started reading the Bible at the same time?  Will he somehow be a better interpreter of its meaning based solely on his being saved?   What if I'm a linguist or an English major and he reads at a 3rd grade level.  Is he still more qualified to interpret?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> If that "voice in your head" told you to do something you would do it like a lap dog; like Abraham.  If I heard a voice like that I would go to the doctor.



I've never had any voices in my head, except my own.


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> no, it is completely wrong.
> 
> You can read and study and do all you want as an unbeliever, but you will never have the understanding of the scripture that a believer that reads and studys as much as you did.


You are completely ignoring the fact that are multi thousands of denominations and forums set up right here for believers with different understandings.
In reality your premise is basically -
Believers don't understand the Bible more accurately than non-believers because they believe and non-believers don't.
Sounds pretty wacky don't it?


----------



## ambush80

ky55 said:


> I think that’s the way it is, because it’s the only way they can make it work.
> When you add the secret Bible decoder ring into the mix it makes for a foolproof system.
> 
> *



What's bizarre to me is that they inevitably argue about what the decoder ring says.  Makes me think their discernment sauce is weak.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I've never had any voices in my head, except my own.


That's exactly what we've been telling you all along.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I've never had any voices in my head, except my own.



I put it in quotes because everybody seems to get their revelation in a different way.  My neighbor says he prays about things and then he gets a warm feeling of certainty and confidence that lets him know that God approves.  What if he got that feeling after being told to sacrifice his kid?  What should he do?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That's exactly what we've been telling you all along.






<div class="tenor-gif-embed" data-postid="5358390" data-share-method="host" data-width="100%" data-aspect-ratio="1.7777777777777777">Boom Kaboom GIF from Boom GIFs</div><script type="text/javascript" async src="https://tenor.com/embed.js"></script>


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> What verse in Acts leads you to either of those conclusions?



Acts 1:18 Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong , he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.   

I think that the funds from his wickedness were used to purchase the field not that he himself went shopping for the field.

Matthew 27:5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

So I reason from this Judas did not actually do the transaction for the land.


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> no, it is completely wrong.
> 
> You can read and study and do all you want as an unbeliever, but you will never have the understanding of the scripture that a believer that reads and studys as much as you did.



There are a bunch of folks down here who studied the bible seriously for many years as believers, and then became unbelievers. 
Did they all forfeit all of that revealed knowledge gained after all of those years of study?
Does God have his own repo department?
Or does the unbeliever get to keep what revealed knowledge he had, and his subscription to any new revelation is terminated?


----------



## ambush80

Geezer Ray said:


> Acts 1:18 Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong , he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
> 
> I think that the funds from his wickedness were used to purchase the field not that he himself went shopping for the field.
> 
> Matthew 27:5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
> 
> So I reason from this Judas did not actually do the transaction for the land.




Do you think you can do this better than a non-believer?


----------



## atlashunter

ky55 said:


> I think that’s the way it is, because it’s the only way they can make it work.
> When you add the secret Bible decoder ring into the mix it makes for a foolproof system.
> 
> *



The lack of consistent answers (when they are actually provided rather than just implied) tells me those who claim to have such a decoder ring are full of beans and being dishonest. Last I checked their book has something to say about liars.


----------



## ambush80

ky55 said:


> There are a bunch of folks down here who studied the bible seriously for many years as believers, and then became unbelievers.
> Did they all forfeit all of that revealed knowledge gained after all of those years of study?
> Does God have his own repo department?
> Or does the unbeliever get to keep what he had, and his subscription to any new revelation is terminated?



Nice.

But if I may play Jesus' advocate, they were doing it wrong all those years and they were never really TRUE believers or they woildn't have left.  If they read scripture and it led them away from Christ then they must have been reading it as carnal doubters.


----------



## ky55

ambush80 said:


> What's bizarre to me is that they inevitably argue about what the decoder ring says.  Makes me think their discernment sauce is weak.



Or maybe god has a sense of humor and they get different decoder rings.


----------



## Geezer Ray

ambush80 said:


> Do you think you can do this better than a non-believer?



What  I think is that God in His wisdom reveals to us as we are able to understand, and if we have a hard heart or a stiff neck then the truth will never be revealed to us. I think that it is not a competition between believers and non-believers but rather a personal relationship with God the father and the choice is ours to make. As long as we're on this side of the grave He is willing to forgive and forget because He loves us that much. I understand that you do not understand that, but fortunately for you there is still time. 

Don't take what I just said personal it was not an attack even though I used the word you.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's exactly what we've been telling you all along.



I'm interested in knowing how you know what's in my head.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> The lack of consistent answers (when they are actually provided rather than just implied) tells me those who claim to have such a decoder ring are full of beans and being dishonest. Last I checked their book has something to say about liars.



Funny how you use the Bible to back up your point.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I put it in quotes because everybody seems to get their revelation in a different way.  My neighbor says he prays about things and then he gets a warm feeling of certainty and confidence that lets him know that God approves.  What if he got that feeling after being told to sacrifice his kid?  What should he do?



He should go re-read the part about thou shalt not kill.


----------



## ambush80

ky55 said:


> Or maybe god has a sense of humor and they get different decoder rings.



Well, he did make mountains and fossils look REALLY old to test our faith.  It's hard to put anything passed him, including killing everyone on Earth.  And He does have a tendency to mess with people. He's a true curiosity.


----------



## Geezer Ray

welderguy said:


> He should go re-read the part about thou shalt not kill.



Actually God never said Thou shalt not kill. He said thou shalt not murder.


----------



## ambush80

Geezer Ray said:


> What  I think is that God in His wisdom reveals to us as we are able to understand, and if we have a hard heart or a stiff neck then the truth will never be revealed to us. I think that it is not a competition between believers and non-believers but rather a personal relationship with God the father and the choice is ours to make. As long as we're on this side of the grave He is willing to forgive and forget because He loves us that much. I understand that you do not understand that, but fortunately for you there is still time.
> 
> Don't take what I just said personal it was not an attack even though I used the word you.



I promise I am impossible to offend.  I'm just enjoying our discussion.  Please understand that I'm never trying to offend you either no matter how pointed my questions might seem.  

I don't see it as a competition but I see a claim made by believers that they can interpret the Bible more correctly than non-believers.  It's either true or not.  

More importantly, do you see the possible problems that might come from people saying that they KNOW what's right and what's real based on feelings that they say come from God, especially when those feelings lead one to not believe in science?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Geezer Ray said:


> Acts 1:18 Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong , he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
> 
> I think that the funds from his wickedness were used to purchase the field not that he himself went shopping for the field.
> 
> Matthew 27:5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
> 
> So I reason from this Judas did not actually do the transaction for the land.


It's not at all that I would want to tear down your faith or be responsible for that, however, I feel that the church does everyone a disservice by teaching that the bible has no contradictions. I feel that it has the potential to cause people to walk away from the faith when they discover these things. As many of the Atheist here have done. Even seminary's  don't teach these things. They steer around them. We should be taught to acknowledge these, to know where they are, and to have confidence in how they happened...... without it being a threat to our core beliefs. For example, if an article was written about Babe Ruth and some incorrect data was within the story, it does not imply that Babe Ruth was a mythological figure. It can, but does not have to default to unbelievable as a whole. So, just because you feel confident that you gave a good answer concerning Judas, don't assume that's the only one. I have many that no one will have answers for. We need to learn that it's OK. It's a book written by fallible men, whom were subject to biases, suffered breakdown by the oral passing down of stories, whom embellished stories as all fishermen might, whom were from different times, different locations, with different issues facing them. Or, thought to themselves, these embellishments are getting out of hand, someone had better record it before it gets unbelievable. And Matthew and Luke thought they could tell it better than Mark so they used Mark's as an outline and took it from there. The bible is what it is. The core truths are still found within, whether Solomon had 2000 or 4000 horses. However, the bible said to be without errors has potential to cause someone to lose faith once these errors are discovered.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> He should go re-read the part about thou shalt not kill.





Geezer Ray said:


> Actually God never said Thou shalt not kill. He said thou shalt not murder.



Y'all better sync up your decoder rings.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html


----------



## ambush80

1gr8bldr said:


> It's not at all that I would want to tear down your faith or be responsible for that, however, I feel that the church does everyone a disservice by teaching that the bible has no contradictions. I feel that it has the potential to cause people to walk away from the faith when they discover these things. As many of the Atheist here have done. Even seminary's  don't teach these things. They steer around them. We should be taught to acknowledge these, to know where they are, and to have confidence in how they happened...... without it being a threat to our core beliefs. For example, if an article was written about Babe Ruth and some incorrect data was within the story, it does not imply that Babe Ruth was a mythological figure. It can, but does not have to default to unbelievable as a whole. So, just because you feel confident that you gave a good answer concerning Judas, don't assume that's the only one. I have many that no one will have answers for. We need to learn that it's OK. It's a book written by fallible men, whom were subject to biases, suffered breakdown by the oral passing down of stories, whom embellished stories as all fishermen might, whom were from different times, different locations, with different issues facing them. Or, thought to themselves, these embellishments are getting out of hand, someone had better record it before it gets unbelievable. And Matthew and Luke thought they could tell it better than Mark so they used Mark's as an outline and took it from there. The bible is what it is. The core truths are still found within, whether Solomon had 2000 or 4000 horses. However, the bible said to be without errors has potential to cause someone to lose faith once these errors are discovered.



You give me hope for the continued reformation of the Christian faith.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm interested in knowing how you know what's in my head.


I don't. 
That's what the evidence leads us to believe and you just confirmed it.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I'm interested in knowing how you know what's in my head.



You told us.



welderguy said:


> I've never had any voices in my head, except my own.



...


----------



## Geezer Ray

ambush80 said:


> I promise I am impossible to offend.  I'm just enjoying our discussion.  Please understand that I'm never trying to offend you either no matter how pointed my questions might seem.
> 
> I don't see it as a competition but I see a claim made by believers that they can interpret the Bible more correctly than non-believers.  It's either true or not.
> 
> More importantly, do you see the possible problems that might come from people saying that they KNOW what's right and what's real based on feelings that they say come from God, especially when those feelings lead one to not believe in science?



I can not speak for others and how they interact with God, but I agree with you there are a lot of self righteous people claiming to be christian and claiming to be Holier than thou. It's these people and other hypocrites that cause non-believers to be so dang HARD HEADED (just kidding). I know that God would never speak to someone any thing that does not line up with His word. God never changes, same yesterday, same today, same tomorrow.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ky55 said:


> 13
> 
> 3 of the 13 are questionable, and 3 are believed by a majority of scholars to be forgeries.
> 
> *



References please?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Acts 1:18 Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong , he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
> 
> I think that the funds from his wickedness were used to purchase the field not that he himself went shopping for the field.
> 
> Matthew 27:5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
> 
> So I reason from this Judas did not actually do the transaction for the land.



The first part of what you said was that you think he returned the money. Acts makes no indication that was the case. The second part of what you think deals with who purchased the field. Acts 1:18 specifically says “this man” (singular) purchased the field. Some translations name Judas specifically. Who in Acts chapter 1 is “this man”? Verse 16 names him specifically as Judas. It makes no suggestion that it could be anyone other than Judas. Also “this man” fell headlong into the field and his body burst open. If that isn’t referring to Judas then who is it referring to? One of the priests that Judas returned the money to? Where would one get that from in the text of Acts? In verse 17 Peter says “For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry”. Who is Peter referring to here if not Judas? So if I’m understanding you correctly you are saying Peter is talking about Judas, then says “now this man” meaning some other person not before or after referred to acquired the field with the price of “his wickedness” again presumably changing the context back to Judas. Is there any indication in this passage that he is talking about anyone other than Judas and if so what is it? One may assume Peter did that in order to try to make the story fit but I see no scriptural basis in Acts to make such a convoluted assumption.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> You told us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Walt said he was declaring it BEFORE I confirmed it.
So, how did he know before I told him?
Get the order of events straight.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> The first part of what you said was that you think he returned the money. Acts makes no indication that was the case. The second part of what you think deals with who purchased the field. Acts 1:18 specifically says “this man” (singular) purchased the field. Some translations name Judas specifically. Who in Acts chapter 1 is “this man”? Verse 16 names him specifically as Judas. It makes no suggestion that it could be anyone other than Judas. Also “this man” fell headlong into the field and his body burst open. If that isn’t referring to Judas then who is it referring to? One of the priests that Judas returned the money to? Where would one get that from in the text of Acts? In verse 17 Peter says “For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry”. Who is Peter referring to here if not Judas? So if I’m understanding you correctly you are saying Peter is talking about Judas, then says “now this man” meaning some other person not before or after referred to acquired the field with the price of “his wickedness” again presumably changing the context back to Judas. Is there any indication in this passage that he is talking about anyone other than Judas and if so what is it? One may assume Peter did that in order to try to make the story fit but I see no scriptural basis in Acts to make such a convoluted assumption.



Man you are making my head spin. I have a little problem with processing due to a motorcycle wreck but I am trying.

A) The first part of what you said was that you think he returned the money. Acts makes no indication that was the case. 

This I get from Matthew 27: 5 not Acts.

B) The second part of what you think deals with who purchased the field. Acts 1:18 specifically says “this man” (singular) purchased the field. Some translations name Judas specifically. Who in Acts chapter 1 is “this man”? 

I believe this man is Judas although my Bible translation does not name Judas. I believe Judas sin and betrayal of Christ Jesus provided the funds but not the transaction. Because of his betrayal and the Jewish priest not taking the money back but using the money for the purchase of the field then well, I guess if you want to say the use of the returned funds mean that Judas bought the field I can stretch that far. 

So I am not disputing that this man is Judas, just that he himself made the actual transaction. See Matthew 27: 5.  I believe that the whole Bible must be considered not just one or two verses. The books of the Bible do support each other.

Whew, I hope I got it all.


----------



## ky55

SemperFiDawg said:


> References please?




Interview with Bart Ehrman in post #178.

I think it’s the one that also has reference to the likely forgery of first and second Peter.


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> I can not speak for others and how they interact with God, but I agree with you there are a lot of self righteous people claiming to be christian and claiming to be Holier than thou. It's these people and other hypocrites that cause non-believers to be so dang HARD HEADED (just kidding). I know that God would never speak to someone any thing that does not line up with His word. God never changes, same yesterday, same today, same tomorrow.





> It's these people and other hypocrites that cause non-believers to be so dang HARD HEADED


Don't be too tough on Christians. That some can be holier than thou, self righteous and hypocrites  aren't what make most non-believers not believe.
99% of it is simply because the facts/evidence don't add up.


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> Man you are making my head spin. I have a little problem with processing due to a motorcycle wreck but I am trying.
> 
> A) The first part of what you said was that you think he returned the money. Acts makes no indication that was the case.
> 
> This I get from Matthew 27: 5 not Acts.
> 
> B) The second part of what you think deals with who purchased the field. Acts 1:18 specifically says “this man” (singular) purchased the field. Some translations name Judas specifically. Who in Acts chapter 1 is “this man”?
> 
> I believe this man is Judas although my Bible translation does not name Judas. I believe Judas sin and betrayal of Christ Jesus provided the funds but not the transaction. Because of his betrayal and the Jewish priest not taking the money back but using the money for the purchase of the field then well, I guess if you want to say the use of the returned funds mean that Judas bought the field I can stretch that far.
> 
> So I am not disputing that this man is Judas, just that he himself made the actual transaction. See Matthew 27: 5.  I believe that the whole Bible must be considered not just one or two verses. The books of the Bible do support each other.
> 
> Whew, I hope I got it all.





> Man you are making my head spin. I have a little problem with processing due to a motorcycle wreck but I am trying.


You are doing good.
It probably doesn't help that since you are the "new guy" we are bombarding you with questions from every direction


----------



## ambush80

Geezer Ray said:


> I can not speak for others and how they interact with God, but I agree with you there are a lot of self righteous people claiming to be christian and claiming to be Holier than thou. It's these people and other hypocrites that cause non-believers to be so dang HARD HEADED (just kidding). I know that God would never speak to someone any thing that does not line up with His word. God never changes, same yesterday, same today, same tomorrow.



But you're not like them.  You're getting God's message loud and clear. How do you know you're right and they're wrong?

What if God instructed you to sacrifice your child like he did Abraham?  Would you obey?


----------



## Geezer Ray

WaltL1 said:


> You are doing good.
> It probably doesn't help that since you are the "new guy" we are bombarding you with questions from every direction



Man I am lovin this. Nothing better than talking about my Lord and Saviour. This is making me think, can't you smell the smoke?


----------



## ambush80

This is the order of posts, Welder:

Post #271



ambush80 said:


> If that "voice in your head" told you to do something you would do it like a lap dog; like Abraham.  If I heard a voice like that I would go to the doctor.



To which you responded in post #280:



welderguy said:


> I've never had any voices in my head, except my own.



Walt jumped in and replied in post #283: 



WaltL1 said:


> That's exactly what we've been telling you all along.



We've been telling you since you started posting around here: that the voices in your head are your own.  They are always your own.



welderguy said:


> Walt said he was declaring it BEFORE I confirmed it.
> So, how did he know before I told him?
> Get the order of events straight.



FAIL, Welder.


----------



## Geezer Ray

ambush80 said:


> But you're not like them.  You're getting God's message loud and clear. How do you know you're right and they're wrong?
> 
> What if God instructed you to sacrifice your child like he did Abraham?  Would you obey?



Well, since Jesus paid the price for our sins there are no other sacrifices to be made. Therefore if something was telling me to sacrifice my child it would have to be false voice and not from God. So no, I will not sacrifice my kids, even though sometimes it seems like it may be a possibility


----------



## Geezer Ray

ambush80 said:


> But you're not like them.  You're getting God's message loud and clear. How do you know you're right and they're wrong?
> 
> What if God instructed you to sacrifice your child like he did Abraham?  Would you obey?



Sorry I left out a reply to your first question. I know I am right or wrong if the message lines up with God's word.


----------



## ambush80

Geezer Ray said:


> Well, since Jesus paid the price for our sins there are no other sacrifices to be made. Therefore if something was telling me to sacrifice my child it would have to be false voice and not from God. So no, I will not sacrifice my kids, even though sometimes it seems like it may be a possibility



Suppose he said to sacrifice yourself?


----------



## ambush80

Geezer Ray said:


> Sorry I left out a reply to your first question. I know I am right or wrong if the message lines up with God's word.



Another believer believes that they're doing the same thing as you but you might not agree on what the message is.  You may indeed believe the exact opposite.  What do you make of that?


----------



## Geezer Ray

ambush80 said:


> Suppose he said to sacrifice yourself?



I must refer you to my previous answer. No sacrifice needed, Jesus paid it all.


----------



## ambush80

Geezer Ray said:


> I must refer you to my previous answer. No sacrifice needed, Jesus paid it all.



What if told you to kill an abortion doctor.


----------



## Geezer Ray

ambush80 said:


> Another believer believes that they're doing the same thing as you but you might not agree on what the message is.  You may indeed believe the exact opposite.  What do you make of that?



Then you would sit down with him and listen and show why this or that. If you still disagree then ask another brother and pray.


----------



## Geezer Ray

ambush80 said:


> What if told you to kill an abortion doctor.



Not Him, He already told us "Thou shalt not murder"


----------



## Geezer Ray

How about some of you other Christian Brothers jump into this lion's den and save me.


----------



## gemcgrew

Geezer Ray said:


> How about some of you other Christian Brothers jump into this lion's den and save me.


I see kittens.


----------



## ky55

Geezer Ray said:


> How about some of you other Christian Brothers jump into this lion's den and save me.



Are you running into some iron chariots?


----------



## Geezer Ray

ky55 said:


> Are you running into some iron chariots?



No just some of those HARD HEADED NON-BELIEVERS.
just kidding


----------



## bullethead

NE GA Pappy said:


> no, it is completely wrong.
> 
> You can read and study and do all you want as an unbeliever, but you will never have the understanding of the scripture that a believer that reads and studys as much as you did.


Im glad that I belived for long enough to understand it so much that I was able to question it. That is a gratitude I have towards religion.


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> I see kittens.



The ones not yet weaned are sometimes, not always, most fun to watch.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> This is the order of posts, Welder:
> 
> Post #271
> 
> 
> 
> To which you responded in post #280:
> 
> 
> 
> Walt jumped in and replied in post #283:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been telling you since you started posting around here: that the voices in your head are your own.  They are always your own.
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL, Welder.



Nope
Walt said he's been telling me there's no voices in my head "all along".
How does he know this(BEFORE TODAY), if I only told him TODAY???


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> What  I think is that God in His wisdom reveals to us as we are able to understand, and if we have a hard heart or a stiff neck then the truth will never be revealed to us. I think that it is not a competition between believers and non-believers but rather a personal relationship with God the father and the choice is ours to make. As long as we're on this side of the grave He is willing to forgive and forget because He loves us that much. I understand that you do not understand that, but fortunately for you there is still time.
> 
> Don't take what I just said personal it was not an attack even though I used the word you.



Some Christians tell us that god chooses an individual. If the heart is hard then god chose to make it that way. The person couldn't believe in Jesus even if he or she wanted to. The persons fate for eternity was already planned before their birth.

Do you find that system to be accurate? Flawed?
Unfair?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Man you are making my head spin. I have a little problem with processing due to a motorcycle wreck but I am trying.
> 
> A) The first part of what you said was that you think he returned the money. Acts makes no indication that was the case.
> 
> This I get from Matthew 27: 5 not Acts.
> 
> B) The second part of what you think deals with who purchased the field. Acts 1:18 specifically says “this man” (singular) purchased the field. Some translations name Judas specifically. Who in Acts chapter 1 is “this man”?
> 
> I believe this man is Judas although my Bible translation does not name Judas. I believe Judas sin and betrayal of Christ Jesus provided the funds but not the transaction. Because of his betrayal and the Jewish priest not taking the money back but using the money for the purchase of the field then well, I guess if you want to say the use of the returned funds mean that Judas bought the field I can stretch that far.
> 
> So I am not disputing that this man is Judas, just that he himself made the actual transaction. See Matthew 27: 5.  I believe that the whole Bible must be considered not just one or two verses. The books of the Bible do support each other.
> 
> Whew, I hope I got it all.



Sorry but that dog won’t hunt. It says this man acquired a field. No mention of some intermediary. You’re inserting that into Acts when it isn’t there. Even if he had used an intermediary it wouldn’t resolve the contradiction. Matthew says he returned the money and went and hanged himself. If that is true how did he acquire anything? That would be like saying you threw a hundred dollar bill on the ground and went off and killed yourself and someone else took the money and spent it. Nobody would then say you acquired whatever that third party purchased with the money. So where does this merging of accounts leave us? Judas goes and throws the money at the priests then leaves. Then they go and buy a field with the money to bury dead foreigners which acquisition is attributed by Peter to Judas with absolutely no mention of the priests. Then Judas goes to this field which he didn’t buy, hangs himself, then some how falls headlong from a hanging position and spills his guts on the field. Notice also that one account attributes the name of the field to the blood spilled by Judas onto the field. The other account attributes the name to the elders having purchased the field with blood money. Now be honest and tell us you really believe that accounts for the different stories of his death? Odd that two recountings of the same event would actually contain more differences than similarities. If these two stories were told by witnesses in a court of law at least one of them if not both would be considered discredited.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Sorry I left out a reply to your first question. I know I am right or wrong if the message lines up with God's word.



Does handling venomous serpents and drinking poison line up with Gods word?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

bullethead said:


> Some Christians tell us that god chooses an individual. If the heart is hard then god chose to make it that way. The person couldn't believe in Jesus even if he or she wanted to. The persons fate for eternity was already planned before their birth.
> 
> Do you find that system to be accurate? Flawed?
> Unfair?



I believe it is a flawed thought process.  You will hear that God preordained certain ones to salvation. They quote the scripture ' those he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son'

Others will say it is free will, and man has the choice.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two.  I believe that God foreknows the ones who will accept salvation and those who will not.  Those He knows that will accept salvation, He predestines those to become more and more like His son.  

I believe that everyone has the freewill to choose salvation, and God knew the ones that would choose that path before they were ever born.  God exist outside of time.  In fact, God created time.  Why would He be constricted by something he created?  That is why He can be omnipresent.  He doesn't have a time constraint. In other words, He can be anywhere and everywhere He wishes at any time.  Kinda like a time traveler.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Not Him, He already told us "Thou shalt not murder"



Did he ever command anyone to kill after issuing that command?


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> I believe it is a flawed thought process.  You will hear that God preordained certain ones to salvation. They quote the scripture ' those he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son'
> 
> Others will say it is free will, and man has the choice.
> 
> I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two.  I believe that God foreknows the ones who will accept salvation and those who will not.  Those He knows that will accept salvation, He predestines those to become more and more like His son.
> 
> I believe that everyone has the freewill to choose salvation, and God knew the ones that would choose that path before they were ever born.  God exist outside of time.  In fact, God created time.  Why would He be constricted by something he created?  That is why He can be omnipresent.  He doesn't have a time constraint. In other words, He can be anywhere and everywhere He wishes at any time.  Kinda like a time traveler.



How is it that all of these people who are supposedly guided in their understanding by god can’t reach a consensus viewpoint?


----------



## Geezer Ray

bullethead said:


> Some Christians tell us that god chooses an individual. If the heart is hard then god chose to make it that way. The person couldn't believe in Jesus even if he or she wanted to. The persons fate for eternity was already planned before their birth.
> 
> Do you find that system to be accurate? Flawed?
> Unfair?



Ok, this is difficult. I believe that the above statement is flawed as read. I hope I can get this across but oh well here goes.
I believe that yes, man was predestined by God to live a perfect sinless life in the perfect garden of Eden. Satan came along and sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.  They used freewill and everything changed. God sees time all at once so He knew this was going to happen. All of us , God knew before the beginning and His will was that we would remain sinless. He knew we would not because again He sees time in total. He also knew that because of sin He would have to send Jesus to make things right and give us another chance. So with our free will we have the choice to accept Gods free gift and grace or to continue to do things our way. Look how that's working out. So to make a very complicated issue short. Yes we were predetermined but not preordained to failure. God is a God of love and is a righteous God. He loves us enough to let us choose. I hope I answered the question you asked, remember I am a little slow.

My wife says I gotta get off now so if I want to continue enjoying your conversation and views I must get off till tomorrow. She goes to work and I can get back on.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Did he ever command anyone to kill after issuing that command?



Yes to kill not murder.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> How about some of you other Christian Brothers jump into this lion's den and save me.



I appreciate that you’ve come in here and joined the discussion. I admit to getting frustrated at people coming in here with absolute confidence in their beliefs yet it seems they have never heard the numerous arguments that ultimately led many of us away from faith. I have to stop and think back to when I was a believer. I do remember one time an atheist coworker telling me about a book he was reading about all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible. I remember not wanting to discuss it at the time. It made me uncomfortable. I really had no interest in exploring it even though I had doubts about the veracity of some stories from my early teen years. I guess I just wasn’t ready to consider the possibility that my beliefs weren’t true. Over time I realized that we should always seek out what is true no matter how painful it might be. That if the Bible is true then we have nothing to fear from putting it to the test. And if it is false it likewise must succumb to what is true and our beliefs should change accordingly. I would much rather believe a painful truth than a comforting lie. Once I came to that realization then I was no longer afraid of the prospect that I might be wrong. If I am wrong I want to know. And the only way to discover that is with reason and evidence. Faith only stands in the way of that pursuit.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Yes to kill not murder.



What’s the difference? If slaughtering entire villages doesn’t qualify as murder surely neither does killing an abortion doctor.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Ok, this is difficult. I believe that the above statement is flawed as read. I hope I can get this across but oh well here goes.
> I believe that yes, man was predestined by God to live a perfect sinless life in the perfect garden of Eden. Satan came along and sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.  They used freewill and everything changed. God sees time all at once so He knew this was going to happen. All of us , God knew before the beginning and His will was that we would remain sinless. He knew we would not because again He sees time in total. He also knew that because of sin He would have to send Jesus to make things right and give us another chance. So with our free will we have the choice to accept Gods free gift and grace or to continue to do things our way. Look how that's working out. So to make a very complicated issue short. Yes we were predetermined but not preordained to failure. God is a God of love and is a righteous God. He loves us enough to let us choose. I hope I answered the question you asked, remember I am a little slow.
> 
> My wife says I gotta get off now so if I want to continue enjoying your conversation and views I must get off till tomorrow. She goes to work and I can get back on.



From whence cometh this Satan figure?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> I see kittens.



That was pretty good zinger.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> I believe it is a flawed thought process.  You will hear that God preordained certain ones to salvation. They quote the scripture ' those he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son'
> 
> Others will say it is free will, and man has the choice.
> 
> I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two.  I believe that God foreknows the ones who will accept salvation and those who will not.  Those He knows that will accept salvation, He predestines those to become more and more like His son.
> 
> I believe that everyone has the freewill to choose salvation, and God knew the ones that would choose that path before they were ever born.  God exist outside of time.  In fact, God created time.  Why would He be constricted by something he created?  That is why He can be omnipresent.  He doesn't have a time constraint. In other words, He can be anywhere and everywhere He wishes at any time.  Kinda like a time traveler.



So a lost person is capable of understanding some of the gospel without the Holy Spirit's help? He can see the light to enough extent to believe? He can do this on his own without the Holy Spirit?
Why couldn't Saul, he was a smart man.


----------



## Jack Ryan

If God wants the guy in heaven, then he is in heaven.

Doesn't matter what the pope or the kid or any of us want or think.


----------



## bullethead

NE GA Pappy said:


> I believe it is a flawed thought process.  You will hear that God preordained certain ones to salvation. They quote the scripture ' those he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son'
> 
> Others will say it is free will, and man has the choice.
> 
> I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two.  I believe that God foreknows the ones who will accept salvation and those who will not.  Those He knows that will accept salvation, He predestines those to become more and more like His son.
> 
> I believe that everyone has the freewill to choose salvation, and God knew the ones that would choose that path before they were ever born.  God exist outside of time.  In fact, God created time.  Why would He be constricted by something he created?  That is why He can be omnipresent.  He doesn't have a time constraint. In other words, He can be anywhere and everywhere He wishes at any time.  Kinda like a time traveler.



I have a hard time understanding why so many believers in the same god, all of which who claim that the same god is active in their lives, differ so much on their knowledge/beliefs/opinions of the same god.

The picking of the Pope has a similar confusion for me. The Catholic church will have us believe that God chooses the next Pope through revelation within the Cardinals who vote. Yet the process takes days if not weeks or longer while they vote and revote. If god is involved in any way, why is it anything but unanimous every single time?

Same goes for belivers...there seems to be 2+billion different opinions from interpretation of the same god. Why isnt the universal truth truthful universally?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Nope
> Walt said he's been telling me there's no voices in my head "all along".
> How does he know this(BEFORE TODAY), if I only told him TODAY???


Because the preponderance of the evidence is that there are no other voices in your head except your own.
That's what we've been telling you all along.

Just like a mother who killed her kids because "God told me to".
The preponderance of the evidence suggests it wasn't God's voice she heard tell her that, it was her own twisted thoughts.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> I have a hard time understanding why so many believers in the same god, all of which who claim that the same god is active in their lives, differ so much on their knowledge/beliefs/opinions of the same god.
> 
> The picking of the Pope has a similar confusion for me. The Catholic church will have us believe that God chooses the next Pope through revelation within the Cardinals who vote. Yet the process takes days if not weeks or longer while they vote and revote. If god is involved in any way, why is it anything but unanimous every single time?
> 
> Same goes for belivers...there seems to be 2+billion different opinions from interpretation of the same god. Why isnt the universal truth truthful universally?



I wonder that same thing about the Council of Nicea. Why did God use a council  of more than one man? It would be better if the Holy Spirit had spoken through one person at Nicea instead of many.

Likewise let God speak through one man and choose a Pope.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Jack Ryan said:


> If God wants the guy in heaven, then he is in heaven.
> 
> Doesn't matter what the pope or the kid or any of us want or think.



Amen, John 15:16;

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last--and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> It's not at all that I would want to tear down your faith or be responsible for that, however, I feel that the church does everyone a disservice by teaching that the bible has no contradictions. I feel that it has the potential to cause people to walk away from the faith when they discover these things. As many of the Atheist here have done. Even seminary's  don't teach these things. They steer around them. We should be taught to acknowledge these, to know where they are, and to have confidence in how they happened...... without it being a threat to our core beliefs. For example, if an article was written about Babe Ruth and some incorrect data was within the story, it does not imply that Babe Ruth was a mythological figure. It can, but does not have to default to unbelievable as a whole. So, just because you feel confident that you gave a good answer concerning Judas, don't assume that's the only one. I have many that no one will have answers for. We need to learn that it's OK. It's a book written by fallible men, whom were subject to biases, suffered breakdown by the oral passing down of stories, whom embellished stories as all fishermen might, whom were from different times, different locations, with different issues facing them. Or, thought to themselves, these embellishments are getting out of hand, someone had better record it before it gets unbelievable. And Matthew and Luke thought they could tell it better than Mark so they used Mark's as an outline and took it from there. The bible is what it is. The core truths are still found within, whether Solomon had 2000 or 4000 horses. However, the bible said to be without errors has potential to cause someone to lose faith once these errors are discovered.



Not a contradiction but a misleading story often told is that God or Jesus changed Saul's name to Paul. We often hear these things so often that it becomes a mainstream belief.
It's not a big deal but if it didn't happen then it shouldn't be presented that it did.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> Man you are making my head spin. I have a little problem with processing due to a motorcycle wreck but I am trying.
> 
> A) The first part of what you said was that you think he returned the money. Acts makes no indication that was the case.
> 
> This I get from Matthew 27: 5 not Acts.
> 
> B) The second part of what you think deals with who purchased the field. Acts 1:18 specifically says “this man” (singular) purchased the field. Some translations name Judas specifically. Who in Acts chapter 1 is “this man”?
> 
> I believe this man is Judas although my Bible translation does not name Judas. I believe Judas sin and betrayal of Christ Jesus provided the funds but not the transaction. Because of his betrayal and the Jewish priest not taking the money back but using the money for the purchase of the field then well, I guess if you want to say the use of the returned funds mean that Judas bought the field I can stretch that far.
> 
> So I am not disputing that this man is Judas, just that he himself made the actual transaction. See Matthew 27: 5.  I believe that the whole Bible must be considered not just one or two verses. The books of the Bible do support each other.
> 
> Whew, I hope I got it all.



I can see what you are saying. I'm not sure I agree but I can see it. 

With the reward of his wickedness Judas bought a field.
Acquired a field with the price of his wickedness.
Purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.

We have such language where Jesus paid the price for our sins, etc. So perhaps in Acts it wasn't the money but Judas' inequity or wickedness that paid the price of the field.
A figure of speech. The wages of sin is death. So it could be the wages of Judas' sin not the money that paid the price of the field.


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> No just some of those HARD HEADED NON-BELIEVERS.
> just kidding


We ARE hard headed.
It takes more than just insisting there is a (G)god for us to believe it.
You gotta show us the money!!


----------



## atlashunter

Jack Ryan said:


> If God wants the guy in heaven, then he is in heaven.
> 
> Doesn't matter what the pope or the kid or any of us want or think.



Doesn’t he want everyone in heaven?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> Not a contradiction but a misleading story often told is that God or Jesus changed Saul's name to Paul. We often hear these things so often that it becomes a mainstream belief.
> It's not a big deal but if it didn't happen then it shouldn't be presented that it did.


Hmmmm????? I had that assumption. Should I look again?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Nope
> Walt said he's been telling me there's no voices in my head "all along".
> How does he know this(BEFORE TODAY), if I only told him TODAY???



Wow.

He said that the voices in your head have been yours all along.  Just like you said.  Just like everybody else.


----------



## ambush80

NE GA Pappy said:


> I believe it is a flawed thought process.  You will hear that God preordained certain ones to salvation. They quote the scripture ' those he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son'
> 
> Others will say it is free will, and man has the choice.
> 
> I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two.  I believe that God foreknows the ones who will accept salvation and those who will not.  Those He knows that will accept salvation, He predestines those to become more and more like His son.
> 
> I believe that everyone has the freewill to choose salvation, and God knew the ones that would choose that path before they were ever born.  God exist outside of time.  In fact, God created time.  Why would He be constricted by something he created?  That is why He can be omnipresent.  He doesn't have a time constraint. In other words, He can be anywhere and everywhere He wishes at any time.  Kinda like a time traveler.



OK.  He oozes around in crazy God time.  What does that mean for us? In the time that matters to us He knows which way we go.  Not much of a choice.

Dig this.  I can surf around in a book of Goldilocks and sometimes I'm in her future and sometimes I'm in her past.  I can start at the end.  

She always eats the porridge and I knew it.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> Wow.
> 
> He said that the voices in your head have been yours all along.  Just like you said.  Just like everybody else.



Reminds me of Hitchens. “If you meet someone on the train who tells you they hear god speaking to them, do you move closer to them or do you gradually ease away?”


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> Hmmmm????? I had that assumption. Should I look again?



"I keep coming across a “sticky” misconception that God (specifically, Jesus) changed the name of an important figure we now typically refer to as “Saint Paul.” "

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/no-saul-the-persecutor-did-not-become-paul-the-apostle/

https://www.gotquestions.org/Saul-Paul.html

Full Question
Why did God change Saul's name to Paul?
Answer

He didn't.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul


----------



## 1gr8bldr

1gr8bldr said:


> Hmmmm????? I had that assumption. Should I look again?


Mercy how assumptions can run deep. I have read the NT 1000 times and never realized my assumption on this matter was unfounded.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Reminds me of Hitchens. “If you meet someone on the train who tells you they hear god speaking to them, do you move closer to them or do you gradually ease away?”



It depends on whether or not he's got dreamy blue eyes and is carrying a lamb.


----------



## Artfuldodger

atlashunter said:


> Reminds me of Hitchens. “If you meet someone on the train who tells you they hear god speaking to them, do you move closer to them or do you gradually ease away?”



I was sitting on a train next to Joseph Smith, he began to tell me how God had chose him to restore the Church on the earth. 

Not really but how do we know if God did or didn't talk to Smith? Why can't their be latter day prophets or prophets that aren't even born yet?  How do we figure out who God has talked to or not.

I've told fellow Christians that the Holy Spirit has enlightened me and they more or less called me out on it.

If another apostle appeared today, most would not believe him.

Ephesians 4:11
And He gave some indeed to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers,


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> Mercy how assumptions can run deep. I have read the NT 1000 times and never realized my assumption on this matter was unfounded.



Me neither. I think it's safe to say God changed Simon's name to Peter or Abram to Abraham. Sarah too, there may be a few more as well.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Wow.
> 
> He said that the voices in your head have been yours all along.  Just like you said.  Just like everybody else.



That has been well established. No argument there. I only wanted to know how Walt knew what was in my head. He already answered it honestly when he said "I don't know".  And he's right, he doesn't know. And you don't either. You have zero proof of voices or lack thereof. You only know what I've said today which is "I've not had voices in my head except for my own".
Now, based on what I've told you, you know I don't have voices in my head. But, you still don't know if everybody else does or not, unless they also tell you. See how that works? Wow


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder that same thing about the Council of Nicea. Why did God use a council  of more than one man? It would be better if the Holy Spirit had spoken through one person at Nicea instead of many.
> 
> Likewise let God speak through one man and choose a Pope.



One and there is doubt. 
When 50 or 100 all come to the same conclusion and write down the exact same thing every time then that is a sign there might be something bigger involved.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> That has been well established. No argument there. I only wanted to know how Walt knew what was in my head. He already answered it honestly when he said "I don't know".  And he's right, he doesn't know. And you don't either. You have zero proof of voices or lack thereof. You only know what I've said today which is "I've not had voices in my head except for my own".
> Now, based on what I've told you, you know I don't have voices in my head. But, you still don't know if everybody else does or not, unless they also tell you. See how that works? Wow



I don't understand what you're saying.  It seems to me that we must be talking about something different from each other or talking past each other or something.  When I get time I'm going to re-read this until I get a grasp of what you're talking about.  If anyone else has been following and understands what Welder is trying to say please chime in.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I don't understand what you're saying.  It seems to me that we must be talking about something different from each other or talking past each other or something.  When I get time I'm going to re-read this until I get a grasp of what you're talking about.  If anyone else has been following and understands what Welder is trying to say please chime in.


My grasp -
Welder told us yesterday there were no voices in his head except his own.
I said that's what we/I have been saying along. Which would mean we/I knew that before he told us.
So his question is how could we/I possibly know that before he told us?
To which I responded that we/I don't actually "know it" its just what a preponderance of the evidence is.
His point here -


> Now, based on what I've told you, you know I don't have voices in my head. But, you still don't know if everybody else does or not, unless they also tell you.


is that we didn't actually "know" until he told us and we cant "know" if anybody else does or not until they tell us like he did.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> My grasp -
> Welder told us yesterday there were no voices in his head except his own.
> I said that's what we/I have been saying along. Which would mean we/I knew that before he told us.
> So his question is how could we/I possibly know that before he told us?
> To which I responded that we/I don't actually "know it" its just what a preponderance of the evidence is.
> His point here -
> is that we didn't actually "know" until he told us and we cant "know" if anybody else does or not until they tell us like he did.



Thanks Walt.  Not trying to speak for you but, I submit that when you and I commented  we were operating from the position that it was common knowledge that everybody hears a voice in their head when they think and that its always their own.  Everybody does it all the time. He can try to refute that if he likes.

No one hears voices in their head that that aren't their own, but everyone hears voices in their head as they think.  Perhaps he's talking about ideas, which could come from someone else (like when you read my words).  

Welder,

In good faith I accept your explanation.  Let's move on.  

Do you ever hear God speak to you?  Does God ever implant thoughts in your head?


----------



## atlashunter

If I had voices in my head that I thought weren’t mine my first thought would be that I need psychiatric help. People who think they are in communication with a being that created the universe are probably overestimating their relevance in the universe.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I wonder what language the voices in your head would be if you were born deaf?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Thanks Walt.  Not trying to speak for you but, I submit that when you and I commented  we were operating from the position that it was common knowledge that everybody hears a voice in their head when they think and that its always their own.  Everybody does it all the time. He can try to refute that if he likes.
> 
> No one hears voices in their head that that aren't their own, but everyone hears voices in their head as they think.  Perhaps he's talking about ideas, which could come from someone else (like when you read my words).
> 
> Welder,
> 
> In good faith I accept your explanation.  Let's move on.
> 
> Do you ever hear God speak to you?  Does God ever implant thoughts in your head?



It all started going south when you labeled me as dangerous. Maybe I misinterpreted, but it seemed as if you wanted to categorize me as some kind of psychopathic danger to society. That was, in my opinion, unfounded, especially since you have no idea what is in my head unless I tell you. I see this type of stereotyping going on more and more lately, and Christians are being lumped into the same group as the radical Islamic murderers. It's wrong, and it ruffles my feathers. That's all.


----------



## hummerpoo

welderguy said:


> It all started going south when you labeled me as dangerous. Maybe I misinterpreted, but it seemed as if you wanted to categorize me as some kind of psychopathic danger to society. That was, in my opinion, unfounded, especially since you have no idea what is in my head unless I tell you. I see this type of stereotyping going on more and more lately, and Christians are being lumped into the same group as the radical Islamic murderers. It's wrong, and it ruffles my feathers. That's all.



Welder, I think you are WRONG; mindreading, big box profiling, hyperbolical accusations, and stereotyping have not increased since I've been here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Geezer Ray said:


> How about some of you other Christian Brothers jump into this lion's den and save me.



You're not the one that needs to be saved by the sound of it, and these are not lions.  I've used to wondered  what kind of person would exhibit the rebellion spoken of here



> And the people were scorched by intense heat, and they cursed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues; yet they did not repent and give Him glory.



Now I know.  Don't let them bring you down.  They won't listen.  They're full of nothing but deception and denigration.  If they shake their fist at God, why would you expect different treatment.  Count it as an honor that they denigrate you.  It means you're on the side of truth and life.


----------



## welderguy

hummerpoo said:


> Welder, I think you are WRONG; mindreading, big box profiling, hyperbolical accusations, and stereotyping have not increased since I've been here.



I meant increasing out in the world in general(not so much per se in here)
But you certainly have a right to your opinion, as well as does Ambush or anyone else.


----------



## hummerpoo

welderguy said:


> I meant increasing out in the world in general(not so much per se in here)
> But you certainly have a right to your opinion, as well as does Ambush or anyone else.



O.K., gotcha.

I have debated with myself about the general increase.  Is it a substantial increase, or an increase in visibility?  It would be good have a certain answer to the question, but I doubt that it will be revealed.

From a positive perspective, it provides recognition and a large income for some and recreation for many.
>>>edit<<< it probably serves to support the self-esteem of several.


----------



## welderguy

hummerpoo said:


> O.K., gotcha.
> 
> I have debated with myself about the general increase.  Is it a substantial increase, or an increase in visibility?  It would be good have a certain answer to the question, but I doubt that it will be revealed.
> 
> From a positive perspective, it provides recognition and a large income for some and recreation for many.
> >>>edit<<< it probably serves to support the self-esteem of several.



I can agree with this.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I meant increasing out in the world in general(not so much per se in here)
> But you certainly have a right to your opinion, as well as does Ambush or anyone else.



From an Election standpoint, would the number of folks God calls be less today than in the 1600's? I'm wondering that even if what is known by the world as Christianity or Atheism has any bearing on God's calling? 

God is no respecter of man and his election isn't based on Atheism's increase or it's tactics.


----------



## NCHillbilly

welderguy said:


> It all started going south when you labeled me as dangerous. Maybe I misinterpreted, but it seemed as if you wanted to categorize me as some kind of psychopathic danger to society. That was, in my opinion, unfounded, especially since you have no idea what is in my head unless I tell you. I see this type of stereotyping going on more and more lately, and Christians are being lumped into the same group as the radical Islamic murderers. It's wrong, and it ruffles my feathers. That's all.



I think you confuse someone disagreeing with you with someone attacking and completely devaluing you. They are different things.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> O.K., gotcha.
> 
> I have debated with myself about the general increase.  Is it a substantial increase, or an increase in visibility?  It would be good have a certain answer to the question, but I doubt that it will be revealed.
> 
> From a positive perspective, it provides recognition and a large income for some and recreation for many.
> >>>edit<<< it probably serves to support the self-esteem of several.


So just my opinions. Got no facts or figures to back it up -


> and Christians are being lumped into the same group as the radical Islamic murderers.


My opinion is anybody that compares modern day Christians to radical Islamic murderers is basically just an idiot. 


> I have debated with myself about the general increase.  Is it a substantial increase, or an increase in visibility?


My opinion is that yes Christianity/organized religion is scrutinized much more so today than it used to be. Lots of different reasons for that. 
And I'll be honest fellas, its your fellow Christians who are causing much of the scrutiny. Think about what folks see on the news -
Swaggart crying his eyes out, Catholic priest scandals, Lear jets and on and on...
As far as people literally "persecuting" Christians of today (here in the US)....... a lot of ya'll are just being drama queens.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> It all started going south when you labeled me as dangerous. Maybe I misinterpreted, but it seemed as if you wanted to categorize me as some kind of psychopathic danger to society. That was, in my opinion, unfounded, especially since you have no idea what is in my head unless I tell you. I see this type of stereotyping going on more and more lately, and Christians are being lumped into the same group as the radical Islamic murderers. It's wrong, and it ruffles my feathers. That's all.



Both Christians and muslims claim to be operating with the authority of the same deity. Both groups have at different times committed atrocities because of that belief. That’s not a stereotype that’s a historical fact. Surely you can see the potential danger in such beliefs.


----------



## WaltL1

NCHillbilly said:


> I think you confuse someone disagreeing with you with someone attacking and completely devaluing you. They are different things.


That is a super important point. We see it very frequently right here.
Read SFD's post up there for a perfect example.


----------



## hummerpoo

NCHillbilly said:


> I think you confuse someone disagreeing with you [in an uncaring, uncivil, denigrating, self-righteous manor] with someone attacking and completely devaluing you. They are different things.



Fixed it; as a general statement concerning this sub-forum, not Ambush specifically.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> So just my opinions. Got no facts or figures to back it up -
> 
> My opinion is anybody that compares modern day Christians to radical Islamic murderers is basically just an idiot.
> 
> My opinion is that yes Christianity/organized religion is scrutinized much more so today than it used to be. Lots of different reasons for that.
> And I'll be honest fellas, its your  fellow Christians who are causing much of the scrutiny. Think about what folks see on the news -
> Swaggart crying his eyes out, Catholic priest scandals, Lear jets and on and on...


And, at least in most cases here, when someone tries to point out that the thing is being evaluated by its abuse, they are denigrated for that.


> As far as people literally "persecuting" Christians of today (here in the US)....... a lot of ya'll are just being drama queens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes some are.
Click to expand...

....


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> And, at least in most cases here, when someone tries to point out that the thing is being evaluated by its abuse, they are denigrated for that.
> ....


I think that's just a fact of life. One can do 10 things right but what gets noticed is the 1 thing they do wrong.
But....just like a regular business, if you employ "representatives" you run the risk of them representing you in a negative way.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> I think that's just a fact of life. One can do 10 things right but what gets noticed is the 1 thing they do wrong.
> But....just like a regular business, if you employ "representatives" you run the risk of them representing you in a negative way.



In business you fire them, New Testament teaching is to excommunicate them, at a time when excommunication would not cleanse the Body (tribalism), it was necessary to kill them to accomplish the required purpose.  Maybe society has moved so far backwards that they will once again have to be killed. That hinges on those outside more than on those inside. — Just thinkin'.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> Both Christians and muslims claim to be operating with the authority of the same deity. Both groups have at different times committed atrocities because of that belief. That’s not a stereotype that’s a historical fact. Surely you can see the potential danger in such beliefs.



I see the history, and even the potential of future atrocities, but a more honest, individual assessment is needed. Not just throwing a blanket judgement over religion as a whole. 
Ambush said I was dangerous, and I still don't understand what caused him to think that.(as far as me individually)


----------



## welderguy

NCHillbilly said:


> I think you confuse someone disagreeing with you with someone attacking and completely devaluing you. They are different things.



I hope so. As I stated, I may have misinterpreted.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Doesn’t he want everyone in heaven?



The answer to this question is YES, but, you have a part to play also.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Both Christians and muslims claim to be operating with the authority of the same deity. Both groups have at different times committed atrocities because of that belief. That’s not a stereotype that’s a historical fact. Surely you can see the potential danger in such beliefs.



Are you saying Muslim God is same as Christian God?

Atrocities committed by Christians have happened but it stems from Man's warped interpretation not from God's commands.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I see the history, and even the potential of future atrocities, but a more honest, individual assessment is needed. Not just throwing a blanket judgement over religion as a whole.
> Ambush said I was dangerous, and I still don't understand what caused him to think that.(as far as me individually)



I maintain that people who think that they get instructions from God are potentially more dangerous than those who don't because they can't be reasoned with.  Particularly if they are overcome by the Holy Spirit and completely convinced of it. Likewise for people that make decisions based off chicken bones or reading tea leaves.    

You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> The answer to this question is YES, but, you have a part to play also.



Is that your opinion?
There are quite a lot of predestination christians that absolutely know their God determined some people were never going to be in Heaven no matter what.
What would you say to those Christians to show them why they are wrong?


----------



## oldfella1962

NCHillbilly said:


> Nope, you are the one that said "good ain't good enough," and "there are no good men." I simply disagree with those statements, no bitterness involved. The world isn't all darkness and evil, and all people weren't born bad or contaminated because of a woman eating an apple and talking to a snake several thousand years ago. Sorry.



you have just committed a sin so severe it should have been the eleventh commandment: stop saying Adam & Eve ate an apple!  the Bible never says "an apple" it just says fruit. They didn't have apples in the region thousands of years ago. Apples are native to central Asia originally.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I maintain that people who think that they get instructions from God are potentially more dangerous than those who don't because they can't be reasoned with.  Particularly if they are overcome by the Holy Spirit and completely convinced of it. Likewise for people that make decisions based off chicken bones or reading tea leaves.
> 
> You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.



You basically just said that all Christians are unreasonable people.
I strongly disagree with that.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Are you saying Muslim God is same as Christian God?
> 
> Atrocities committed by Christians have happened but it stems from Man's warped interpretation not from God's commands.



Yes it’s the same god. Actually it would be more accurate to say that their gods share common origin.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> I see the history, and even the potential of future atrocities, but a more honest, individual assessment is needed. Not just throwing a blanket judgement over religion as a whole.
> Ambush said I was dangerous, and I still don't understand what caused him to think that.(as far as me individually)



Here is what he said in post 267.



> People who believe that they are receiving instruction from God are potentially more dangerous than the average bear and at very least are a hinderance to secular, rational advancements; the kind that took us out of the dark ages.



Which part of that do you disagree with?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Atrocities committed by Christians have happened but it stems from Man's warped interpretation not from God's commands.



Just to cite one example, does the Bible not say thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?


----------



## oldfella1962

atlashunter said:


> I wonder if this god told himself that when he created both the tormented and the place of torment with the full knowledge that he would spend eternity listening to their screams?



he won't be listening - he will have washed his hands of the whole affair. The default answer is "well they all had a choice so god's hands were tied. God has to do this to prove he hates sin so much."

But why would eternal torment be such a stretch for someone who killed 99.9 percent of the population in a flood near the very beginning of the creation of existence? Everyone should have seen more extreme violence coming at the end of creation/existence. 
He's a straight shooter & he doesn't pull any punches either.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> Here is what he said in post 267.
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you disagree with?



Again, he's making a blanket judgement. I can agree that it may include some, but I disagree if it includes all.
In post 387 Ambush says those that get their instructions from God cannot be reasoned with. Another all inclusive blanket assessment, which I disagree with.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> I see the history, and even the potential of future atrocities, but a more honest, individual assessment is needed. Not just throwing a blanket judgement over religion as a whole.
> Ambush said I was dangerous, and I still don't understand what caused him to think that.(as far as me individually)



Being delusional and thinking a third party is talking to you inside your head is bad enough as it is. Thinking that voice is an authority figure ups the ante. Thinking that voice holds absolute authority really ups the ante. If a voice in my head says to kill someone even if I’m convinced the voice isn’t me their command is still subject to reason. I can question it. I can weigh the pros and cons of carrying out the command. I can question the morality of it. And if I conclude the command isn’t just or the cons outweigh the pros I have no fear of retribution if I disobey. Even though I’m suffering from a delusion I still have the safeguard of my own reason. The god delusion short circuits that safeguard. It says that what god commands is moral by virtue of his having commanded it. That I am in no position to question and face the potential of eternal torment if I disobey. Now if you can’t say how this is as ambush said, potentially dangerous then I don’t know what to tell you. It may be that this voice only tells the person to do good things in which case no bad comes from it. But the point remains that the natural safeguard of reason has been bypassed in their mind and all it would take is for their delusion to steer them wrong. And it doesn’t even have to be malicious. A parent believes god has told them prayer will heal their child if they act in faith by not going to a doctor. They don’t intend to hurt the child and they don’t believe the voice has that intent either but the result can still be destructive because they’ve surrendered reason to delusion.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> You basically just said that all Christians are unreasonable people.
> I strongly disagree with that.




I think that they believe something that's unreasonable.  A ***** in the heart isn't reason.  A personal revelation isn't reason either. 

_Reason

2. the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic._

_Unreasonable

not guided by or based on good sense._

How can I reason with a person who says that God told them something?  What if they say that God told them through His book that the Earth stopped in it's rotation and they believe it and I can't change their mind?  How can I reason with them about it?  Would it be fair to call them unreasonable? 

I'll admit I was speaking too broadly.  I recognize that people with unreasonable beliefs can be reasonable about all manner of other things.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> Again, he's making a blanket judgement. I can agree that it may include some, but I disagree if it includes all.
> In post 387 Ambush says those that get their instructions from God cannot be reasoned with. Another all inclusive blanket assessment, which I disagree with.



To the extent that you believe those instructions are inerrant and authoritative he is correct.

What is your take on divine command theory?


----------



## oldfella1962

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm don't know why their version of God would be so ticked off at what they believe or don't believe,  in this 100 year life span...that he would sentence them to everlasting suffering for ever, and ever, and ever, 1000 x our life and more. And.... created he11, as if he already knew what would happen???? That's like Santa Claus turning all the kids  blind that don't believe in him.



god sent bears down from the hills to devour kids that made fun of the prophet Elishia.  Talk about a situation escalating rather quickly!  But when you are known for "working in mysterious ways" you have to apply the smack-down from time-to-time. to keep the people on their toes!


----------



## atlashunter

oldfella1962 said:


> he won't be listening - he will have washed his hands of the whole affair. The default answer is "well they all had a choice so god's hands were tied. God has to do this to prove he hates sin so much."
> 
> But why would eternal torment be such a stretch for someone who killed 99.9 percent of the population in a flood near the very beginning of the creation of existence? Everyone should have seen more extreme violence coming at the end of creation/existence.
> He's a straight shooter & he doesn't pull any punches either.



If he is omniscient then he will be cognizant of every expression of suffering. Forever.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Being delusional and thinking a third party is talking to you inside your head is bad enough as it is. Thinking that voice is an authority figure ups the ante. Thinking that voice holds absolute authority really ups the ante. If a voice in my head says to kill someone even if I’m convinced the voice isn’t me their command is still subject to reason. I can question it. I can weigh the pros and cons of carrying out the command. I can question the morality of it. And if I conclude the command isn’t just or the cons outweigh the pros I have no fear of retribution if I disobey. Even though I’m suffering from a delusion I still have the safeguard of my own reason. The god delusion short circuits that safeguard. It says that what god commands is moral by virtue of his having commanded it. That I am in no position to question and face the potential of eternal torment if I disobey. Now if you can’t say how this is as ambush said, potentially dangerous then I don’t know what to tell you. It may be that this voice only tells the person to do good things in which case no bad comes from it. But the point remains that the natural safeguard of reason has been bypassed in their mind and all it would take is for their delusion to steer them wrong. And it doesn’t even have to be malicious. A parent believes god has told them prayer will heal their child if they act in faith by not going to a doctor. They don’t intend to hurt the child and they don’t believe the voice has that intent either but the result can still be destructive because they’ve surrendered reason to delusion.



Well said.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> If he is omniscient then he will be cognizant of every expression of suffering. Forever.



He CAN make a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it.....but He can eat it too.

Don't ask me how.  Lay it at the foot of the cross.


----------



## oldfella1962

WaltL1 said:


> If He11 was created by an all knowing God, could there be a "suddenly"?
> God didn't know he was going to eventually need a 4 bedroom he11 instead of a 1 bedroom?



so if you were 450 pounds of fat when you died would your resurrected body bound for Hades be 450 pounds of fat too? With the developed world getting fatter by the minute now god has to make hades even bigger (or charge them double like on some airlines).


----------



## oldfella1962

atlashunter said:


> Fear me and love me. Or else you’ll be sorry. Doesn’t sound like a healthy relationship.



No kidding! Choose one or the other. I guess maybe you can love & fear someone at the same time like your parents when you are a kid. It's all about obedience and overlooking the "do as I say, not as I do!" things and accepting "because I said so!" as an answer. 

There's a Tom Waits song (I think it's Heart Attack and Vine) that goes "there ain't no devil, that's just god when he's drunk."


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> so if you were 450 pounds of fat when you died would your resurrected body bound for Hades be 450 pounds of fat too? With the developed world getting fatter by the minute now god has to make hades even bigger (or charge them double like on some airlines).



He11 might smell pretty good.

<p>via GIPHY</p>


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Just to cite one example, does the Bible not say thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?



What verse and book, please?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I think that they believe something that's unreasonable.  A ***** in the heart isn't reason.  A personal revelation isn't reason either.
> 
> _Reason
> 
> 2. the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic._
> 
> _Unreasonable
> 
> not guided by or based on good sense._
> 
> How can I reason with a person who says that God told them something?  What if they say that God told them through His book that the Earth stopped in it's rotation and they believe it and I can't change their mind?  How can I reason with them about it?  Would it be fair to call them unreasonable?
> 
> I'll admit I was speaking too broadly.  I recognize that people with unreasonable beliefs can be reasonable about all manner of other things.



I knew you'd see my reasoning eventually.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Yes it’s the same god. Actually it would be more accurate to say that their gods share common origin.



Where do you get this from?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> What verse and book, please?



You don't know?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Where do you get this from?



https://www.britannica.com/topic/Allah



> The name’s origin can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was il or el, the latter being used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). AllÄ�h is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews as well as by Muslims regardless of their native tongue.



Ever heard of the semitic deity referred to as El?


----------



## Geezer Ray

bullethead said:


> Is that your opinion?
> There are quite a lot of predestination christians that absolutely know their God determined some people were never going to be in Heaven no matter what.
> What would you say to those Christians to show them why they are wrong?



Matthew 18:14 So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these should perish.   Yes this is spoken in a parable, notice Father is capitalized indicating God, not His will.

John 6:40 For this is the will of My Father, that EVERYONE who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him upon the last day.

These are a couple of verse that say Everyone and Fathers will is none should perish.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> You don't know?



nope


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> nope



If you don’t know what your book says, you’re in no position to say whether Christians are acting in accordance with it or not.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Allah
> 
> I am sorry but I do not think we are speaking of the same God. I put no faith in the Muslim bible what so ever. I know you are going to pounce on that. I am warned against false doctrine and I believe this to be false doctrine. When Ishmael and his mother were sent away God did bless Ishmael and promised a great nation which I believe became the Arabs see Genesis 16:11-12. I believe this is where the two end and the Arabs idea of God is false. I know I know but that is how I feel.
> 
> Ever heard of the semitic deity referred to as El?



Sorry no I have not, I did try to look up El in my Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible and found no reference to El.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> If you don’t know what your book says, you’re in no position to say whether Christians are acting in accordance with it or not.



Ok so does that mean you can not provide the book and verse? I do not have the bible memorized I still have to look up somethings.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Geezer Ray said:


> What verse and book, please?



Exodus 22:18

There are several verses that deal with expunging evil from the jewish empire.  Just like several on here have said we need to 'turn Iraq into a sea of glass' with nuclear weapons.  

They know that the thought process and actions of a nation can't be changed, and the only way to wipe out those things is to eliminate all those people who would practice the behaviors that are to be done away.


----------



## Geezer Ray

NE GA Pappy said:


> Exodus 22:18
> 
> There are several verses that deal with expunging evil from the jewish empire.  Just like several on here have said we need to 'turn Iraq into a sea of glass' with nuclear weapons.
> 
> They know that the thought process and actions of a nation can't be changed, and the only way to wipe out those things is to eliminate all those people who would practice the behaviors that are to be done away.



This is of course when the Jewish people were living under the law. Jesus Christ gave a new covenant and we are living under grace and mercy now because it is impossible to follow all the law.


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> Matthew 18:14 So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these should perish.   Yes this is spoken in a parable, notice Father is capitalized indicating God, not His will.
> 
> John 6:40 For this is the will of My Father, that EVERYONE who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him upon the last day.
> 
> These are a couple of verse that say Everyone and Fathers will is none should perish.



Epesians 1:4
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

Romans 9:11
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—

Romans 9:15-21
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Willwhat is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump done vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?


----------



## bullethead

http://www.christiandoctrine.com/ch...s-who-will-be-saved-qeverything-else-is-a-lie


----------



## NCHillbilly

Geezer Ray said:


> This is of course when the Jewish people were living under the law. Jesus Christ gave a new covenant and we are living under grace and mercy now because it is impossible to follow all the law.



So, is it ok for us to make graven images and commit adultery and eat shrimp and wear clothing made of mixed fibers now?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Sorry no I have not, I did try to look up El in my Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible and found no reference to El.



That's strange.

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> This is of course when the Jewish people were living under the law. Jesus Christ gave a new covenant and we are living under grace and mercy now because it is impossible to follow all the law.



So the Ten Commandments are now obsolete? Interesting that Christians didn’t get that memo about killing witches for centuries.


----------



## atlashunter

NCHillbilly said:


> So, is it ok for us to make graven images and commit adultery and eat shrimp and wear clothing made of mixed fibers now?



Matthew 5

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## Geezer Ray

NCHillbilly said:


> So, is it ok for us to make graven images and commit adultery and eat shrimp and wear clothing made of mixed fibers now?



No, that's not what was said at all. Eat all the shrimp cocktail while wearing polyester and wool and cotton, while wearing jeans. Adultery is still a sin and so is making and worshipping a graven image. Jesus freed us from the law at the cross. But sin is still sin regardless. If you feel bound by the law , when did you last offer a sacrifice ,or wave offering, when did you last celebrate the Year Jubilee and give your land back to whom you bought it?


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> So the Ten Commandments are now obsolete? Interesting that Christians didn’t get that memo about killing witches for centuries.



No the the commandments are not obsolete they still describe sin.  And I am still waiting on you to produce the book and verse that you want to use as a reference for your witch stuff. You seem to be dodging that a little.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> So the Ten Commandments are now obsolete? Interesting that Christians didn’t get that memo about killing witches for centuries.



Very sexist reply. Dont forget about warlocks. Do you practice?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> This is of course when the Jewish people were living under the law. Jesus Christ gave a new covenant and we are living under grace and mercy now because it is impossible to follow all the law.



Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Old Testament right?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> No, that's not what was said at all. Eat all the shrimp cocktail while wearing polyester and wool and cotton, while wearing jeans. Adultery is still a sin and so is making and worshipping a graven image. Jesus freed us from the law at the cross. But sin is still sin regardless. If you feel bound by the law , when did you last offer a sacrifice ,or wave offering, when did you last celebrate the Year Jubilee and give your land back to whom you bought it?



Sounds like you are picking and choosing which laws still apply and which don’t. Jesus had something to say about people who do that in the book of Matthew.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> Matthew 18:14 So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these should perish.   Yes this is spoken in a parable, notice Father is capitalized indicating God, not His will.
> 
> John 6:40 For this is the will of My Father, that EVERYONE who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him upon the last day.
> 
> These are a couple of verse that say Everyone and Fathers will is none should perish.



Jesus only came for his sheep. The sheep know his name.
The will of the Father is that none of his sheep shall perish. That is why the shepherd went to find his one lost sheep. He didn't go look for any goats.

Next, God's will is always done. The will of the Father, "is" that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life. 

In other words the will of God is that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life. God's will is that everyone who believes will have eternal life, not that everyone will believe.

Neither of these verses says that God wants everyone to have eternal life. If he did and that is true, we call that Universal Salvation.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Very sexist reply. Dont forget about warlocks. Do you practice?



I know Christians burned a lot of women at the stake. Not sure if men got the same treatment for witchcraft. Is there something about certain genitalia that prevents a person from practicing witchcraft? I guess the folks whose holy book sanctions the killing would know.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> Old Testament right?



It is still a sin in the new testament also.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> I know Christians burned a lot of women at the stake. Not sure if men got the same treatment for witchcraft. Is there something about certain genitalia that prevents a person from practicing witchcraft? I guess the folks whose holy book sanctions the killing would know.



Most were hanged. And yes there were men that practiced the craft as well. That was actually a common form of punishment for that era. Same as horse thief's. I thought you were an expert?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> No the the commandments are not obsolete they still describe sin.  And I am still waiting on you to produce the book and verse that you want to use as a reference for your witch stuff. You seem to be dodging that a little.



I quoted the scripture which you can easily look up if you’re really unaware of it which I don’t believe you are and can’t now claim to be since book and verse has been given. In short I don’t believe you’re really as ignorant as you have claimed to be. If you really are that ignorant then take part in the remediation of it. If you’re unwilling to do that then don’t place demands on others to do for you what you’re not willing to do for yourself.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> No, that's not what was said at all. Eat all the shrimp cocktail while wearing polyester and wool and cotton, while wearing jeans. Adultery is still a sin and so is making and worshipping a graven image. Jesus freed us from the law at the cross. But sin is still sin regardless. If you feel bound by the law , when did you last offer a sacrifice ,or wave offering, when did you last celebrate the Year Jubilee and give your land back to whom you bought it?



Then you see sin as being separate from the Law? Jesus died so that we don't have to follow the Law? The New Covenant released us from the yoke of the Law?
We no longer have to offer sacrifice, wave offering, etc.

In relation to burning witches, was that part of the Law?
Adultery, homosexuality, etc. Jesus didn't die for? 
Lust and hate, Jesus didn't die for?

Here is a verse I've struggled with;

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

It does kinda sound like more than just believing. Unless the will of the Father is to believe. Sometimes I think it means to not have anger and lust in my heart. To feed and cloth others. Maybe it's both.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Most were hanged. And yes there were men as well. I thought you were an expert?



I’ve never made such a claim. Why were they hanged and burned at the stake? Is it not moral to kill people the Bible says to kill?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> It is still a sin in the new testament also.



OK, Jesus only died for the Law then. We can eat shrimp as long as we don't have lust in our heart. We can wear mixed clothing as long as we don't harbor jealousy in our heart.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus only came for his sheep. The sheep know his name.
> The will of the Father is that none of his sheep shall perish. That is why the shepherd went to find his one lost sheep. He didn't go look for any goats.
> 
> Next, God's will is always done. The will of the Father, "is" that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life.
> 
> In other words the will of God is that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life. God's will is that everyone who believes will have eternal life, not that everyone will believe.
> 
> Neither of these verses says that God wants everyone to have eternal life. If he did and that is true, we call that Universal Salvation.



JOHN 3:16 Read it very slowly and look at each word.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that *WHOEVER* believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

I don't know about you but I read whoever as open to any body not some people but anybody. It does require a little effort on your part, you must believe and accept His Son and the sacrifice He made for you at Calvary. He wants everyone but they must do their part.

The sheep are His believers not a bunch of farm animals, IT'S a PARABLE. The sheep know their master, their Saviour, They know His voice because they have a personal relationship with Him.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> I’ve never made such a claim. Why were they hanged and burned at the stake? Is it not moral to kill people the Bible says to kill?



They had a trial and were convicted. That's how the law worked. You can read into it what you want but its really no different. There are laws in every society. Are you for lawlessness?


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, Jesus only died for the Law then. We can eat shrimp as long as we don't have lust in our heart. We can wear mixed clothing as long as we don't hate our neighbor.



You are getting close to catching on but not quite there yet. He died for your sins, as a perfect once and for all sacrifice if you believe and accept. Now try again.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Leviticus 20:27
 “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.”

I guess the discussion is about this happening in the US and the Old Testament? It would be interesting as to why it was continued for so long if the New Covenant released us from doing so. 
Also, I wonder why the didn't use stones in the US as that was the correct killing medium.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> They had a trial and were convicted. That's how the law worked. You can read into it what you want but its really no different. There are laws in every society. Are you for lawlessness?



Thank you. And as we are repeatedly told by the faithful, these laws were instituted on the basis of “judeo christian” values. Now explain to your brethren that killing witches is not mans perversion of scripture.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> Then you see sin as being separate from the Law? Jesus died so that we don't have to follow the Law? The New Covenant released us from the yoke of the Law?
> We no longer have to offer sacrifice, wave offering, etc.
> 
> In relation to burning witches, was that part of the Law?
> Adultery, homosexuality, etc. Jesus didn't die for?
> Lust and hate, Jesus didn't die for?
> 
> Here is a verse I've struggled with;
> 
> Matthew 7:21
> 
> 
> "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
> 
> It does kinda sound like more than just believing. Unless the will of the Father is to believe. Sometimes I think it means to not have anger and lust in my heart. To feed and cloth others. Maybe it's both.



Matthew 7:21 is referring to posers. People who you might call Christian Atheist. They claim to be christians but live like the devil.
The will of the Father is no sin, love your neighbors as you love yourself. And by the way loving your neighbors includes unsaved sinners also.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> JOHN 3:16 Read it very slowly and look at each word.
> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that *WHOEVER* believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
> 
> I don't know about you but I read whoever as open to any body not some people but anybody. It does require a little effort on your part, you must believe and accept His Son and the sacrifice He made for you at Calvary. He wants everyone but they must do their part.
> 
> The sheep are His believers not a bunch of farm animals, IT'S a PARABLE. The sheep know their master, their Saviour, They know His voice because they have a personal relationship with Him.



I've read John 3:16 very slow. It says "whoever believes shall have everlasting life." It doesn't say how one comes to believe. We have to look at other scriptures to see that God has to lead one to Christ. To see how one becomes a "whoever" believer.

Romans 11:6-8
6And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace. 7What then? What Israel was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see, and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”

Salvation is by grace or else it's not grace. The elect did and the others were hardened. God gave them a spirit of stupor. Eyes that could not see.
He did this to make sure his plan happened the way he wanted it to.

Whoever believes will have everlasting life. It's just that not everyone will be given that chance. Many are dead in the ground already and never heard the Gospel.
Many were born Hindu or Buddhist. They are blinded by their indoctrination to not believe in Jesus.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> Leviticus 20:27
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.”
> 
> I guess the discussion is about this happening in the US and the Old Testament? It would be interesting as to why it was continued for so long if the New Covenant released us from doing so.
> Also, I wonder why the didn't use stones in the US as that was the correct killing medium.



Never leave man out of your equations. Man fails o
ften and the Bible tells us we all fall short of the glory.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Matthew 7:21 is referring to posers. People who you might call Christian Atheist. They claim to be christians but live like the devil.
> The will of the Father is no sin, love your neighbors as you love yourself. And by the way loving your neighbors includes unsaved sinners also.



I’m not a Christian so I don’t have special discernment powers but it’s sure nice to have yet another interpreter here to tell us which scriptures still apply, which don’t, which sins in the Old Testament are still sins (adultery) and which aren’t (eating shellfish), and so on. Always nice to have folks around who can explain to us stupid atheists what the Bible really meant to say when we read it.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> I've read John 3:16 very slow. It says "whoever believes shall have everlasting life." It doesn't say how one comes to believe. We have to look at other scriptures to see that God has to lead one to Christ. To see how one becomes a "whoever" believer.
> 
> Romans 11:6-8
> 6And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace. 7What then? What Israel was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see, and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”
> 
> Salvation is by grace or else it's not grace. The elect did and the others were hardened. God gave them a spirit of stupor. Eyes that could not see.
> He did this to make sure his plan happened the way he wanted it to.



The Jews turn their back on Gods Son, Jesus. They also said to let His blood be on them when crying for the crucifixion. So now enter the Gentiles and the good news was preached to them. We are in the time of the gentile now, but, in the end God will reclaim his people and the Jews eyes will be opened to the true Messiah. Salvation will come to those Jews who believe and accept Jesus Christ.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> I've read John 3:16 very slow. It says "whoever believes shall have everlasting life." It doesn't say how one comes to believe. We have to look at other scriptures to see that God has to lead one to Christ. To see how one becomes a "whoever" believer.
> 
> Romans 11:6-8
> 6And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace. 7What then? What Israel was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see, and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”
> 
> Salvation is by grace or else it's not grace. The elect did and the others were hardened. God gave them a spirit of stupor. Eyes that could not see.
> He did this to make sure his plan happened the way he wanted it to.
> 
> Whoever believes will have everlasting life. It's just that not everyone will be given that chance. Many are dead in the ground already and never heard the Gospel.
> Many were born Hindu or Buddhist. They are blinded by their indoctrination to not believe in Jesus.



Don’t forget the many unborn who are in heaven having had no say in the matter.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> I’m not a Christian so I don’t have special discernment powers but it’s sure nice to have yet another interpreter here to tell us which scriptures still apply, which don’t, which sins in the Old Testament are still sins (adultery) and which aren’t (eating shellfish), and so on. Always nice to have folks around who can explain to us stupid atheists what the Bible really meant to say when we read it.



My friend no one called you or atheist stupid, I am sorry if you took anything I said as implying that. I may not be the best at explaining but I am trying. Just remember Jesus brought about a new covenant and the age of grace and mercy took over.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> They had a trial and were convicted. That's how the law worked. You can read into it what you want but its really no different. There are laws in every society. Are you for lawlessness?



That’s a nice bass btw.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Thank you. And as we are repeatedly told by the faithful, these laws were instituted on the basis of “judeo christian” values. Now explain to your brethren that killing witches is not mans perversion of scripture.


That is the foundation. You disagree? There are many translations of scripture and law. What's your point? You do know that the country you live in was founded on Judeo Christian values. Christians dont like evil. You do?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> Matthew 7:21 is referring to posers. People who you might call Christian Atheist. They claim to be christians but live like the devil.
> The will of the Father is no sin, love your neighbors as you love yourself. And by the way loving your neighbors includes unsaved sinners also.



Earlier you said this as well;
"You are getting close to catching on but not quite there yet. He died for your sins, as a perfect once and for all sacrifice if you believe and accept. Now try again."

I'm a bit confused as to what sins Jesus died for. You also said the ten commandments were still in place to show us sin. 
I've read that the commandments were given to show us that we couldn't not sin and thus needed a Savior.

We also have in the New Testament the Great Commandments;
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Again I ask, for what sins of mine did Jesus die? Is it  a "perfect once and for all sacrifice" for all who believe or is it not? I mean it didn't work for the posers. 

In a more simple way, do you see salvation as grace only or do you see some Lordship Salvation works in the mix as well?


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> My friend no one called you or atheist stupid, I am sorry if you took anything I said as implying that. I may not be the best at explaining but I am trying. Just remember Jesus brought about a new covenant and the age of grace and mercy took over.



I was just poking fun Ray. Maybe you don’t see it but you folks are constantly moving the goal posts. I can’t help but poke fun at it a bit. I bet you’d say murder should be illegal because the Ten Commandments tells us thou shalt not kill. Yet that same book says to kill witches and you then say it’s a perversion of scripture to follow through on that because of the crucifixion. It’s like you’re rolling down the buffet line deciding which rules still apply and which don’t and we are watching you do it.  People are still being killed to this day because of that bible verse. It’s really a bit insulting to those folks who have lost their lives to pretend it doesn’t say what it says and mean what it says or that Christians should somehow know not to take that verse seriously but take others seriously. If we can discern which parts of the Bible should be followed and which parts shouldn’t be followed why bother with the book in the first place?

No offense taken or intended.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> The sheep are His believers not a bunch of farm animals, IT'S a PARABLE. The sheep know their master, their Saviour, They know His voice because they have a personal relationship with Him.



The sheep are his believers. I understand the language. Read it again. One of his Sheep(believers) went astray. The Shepard(Jesus) went after him. 
It's God's will that none of his Sheep ever get lost to the point they aren't found. 
They may stumble but not to the point that they can't regain.
This parable says nothing about goats.(people who aren't sheep)
You've got to take off your indoctrination goggles to see it the correct way.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> That is the foundation. You disagree? There are many translations of scripture and law. What's your point? You do know that the country you live in was founded on Judeo Christian values. Christians dont like evil. You do?



It’s the foundation for some laws. For others it is falsely attributed to be the foundation. How many translations are there for “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”? How many translations should we expect of those who are being divinely guided in their understanding?


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> Earlier you said this as well;
> "You are getting close to catching on but not quite there yet. He died for your sins, as a perfect once and for all sacrifice if you believe and accept. Now try again."
> 
> I'm a bit confused as to what sins Jesus died for. You also said the ten commandments were still in place to show us sin.
> I've read that the commandments were given to show us that we couldn't not sin and thus needed a Savior.
> 
> We also have in the New Testament the Great Commandments;
> Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
> 
> Again I ask, for what sins of mine did Jesus die? Is it  a "perfect once and for all sacrifice" for all who believe or is it not? I mean it didn't work for the posers.
> 
> In a more simple way, do you see salvation as grace only or do you see some Lordship Salvation works in the mix as well?



First let me say it is not for me to judge who is a true believer and who isn't. That is between you and God. 
Jesus died for every sin past,present, and future. Your's, mine, and all of mankind. He was the sacrificial lamb that had to die to cover our sins in blood. All sin including what happened in the old testament required a blood sacrifice. Jesus, being the only sinless Man to ever live paid for our sins with His blood. We are then washed in the blood. 

You said "I've read that the commandments were given to show us that we couldn't not sin and thus needed a Savior." You are correct, the law was meant to condem and Christ sacrifice was to save. We all sin, have you ever lied, broke the speed limit, yes we are to obey government because God allows government to be, as long as it doesn't go against God's word.

You said "Is it  a "perfect once and for all sacrifice" for all who believe or is it not? I mean it didn't work for the posers. " You are again correct it is once and for all. All who believe and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Accept the sacrifice He made on Calvary. Love and believe with all your heart. It will not work for those who do not truly believe.

You said "In a more simple way, do you see salvation as grace only or do you see some Lordship Salvation works in the mix as well?[/QUOTE]"

Salvation is by grace only, God/ Jesus Christ did all that needed doing. Remember when Christ was dying He said "IT IS FINISHED". There is nothing more to be done except Believe, Love, with all your heart. No one really knows but you and God. Thats whats so cool to me. It is personal and no one else can judge me.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> The sheep are his believers. I understand the language. Read it again. One of his Sheep(believers) went astray. The Shepard(Jesus) went after him.
> It's God's will that none of his Sheep ever get lost to the point they aren't found.
> They may stumble but not to the point that they can't regain.
> This parable says nothing about goats.(people who aren't sheep)
> You've got to take off your indoctrination goggles to see it the correct way.



You are correct it does not address non-believers. It does however address believers who stumble and fall. Which I most certainly have. But it also shows as you pointed out the Sheppard or Jesus is the way back. That's Gods mercy and grace. So we agree.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Look if I am making any one mad that is not my intention and if I need to get off ya'lls thread I will certainly honor your wishes. I don't mean to offend all.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> It’s the foundation for some laws. For others it is falsely attributed to be the foundation. How many translations are there for “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”? How many translations should we expect of those who are being divinely guided in their understanding?



Lets stop beating around the burning bush Atlas. What lead to your dislike of Christianity? Was it resentment of your upbringing? Hypocrisy? You dont believe the bible? Science? All of the above? What? With your divinely guided comment I'm leaning toward resentment. Everyone is different so you should expect that many divine understandings. What is their personal relationship? What have they prayed for? Too many variables to define a status quo. Btw nice dorado.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Look if I am making any one mad that is not my intention and if I need to get off ya'lls thread I will certainly honor your wishes. I don't mean to offend all.



Not at all. You’re welcome here. A lot of this is rehashing things we’ve been over a hundred times but that’s ok. If we didn’t do that this forum would have been dead a long time ago.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Lets stop beating around the burning bush Atlas. What lead to your dislike of Christianity? Was it resentment of your upbringing? Hypocrisy? You dont believe the bible? Science? All of the above? What? With your divinely guided comment I'm leaning toward resentment. Everyone is different so you should expect that many divine understandings. What is their personal relationship? What have they prayed for? Too many variables to define a status quo.



So divine guidance should lead people to many different translations of “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”? I’m not the first one on this thread to make the claim that believers have special understanding of scripture that is simply unavailable to nonbelievers. It was one of your brothers who made that claim. Are they being resentful by making the comment? I guess only you would know. I just find it fascinating that one deity would lead you all in so many different and contradictory directions over the meaning of what appears to me to be a very simple and clear verse.


----------



## atlashunter

Questions for both Ray and Ritchie. Is the killing of witches sanctioned by your religion? How about slavery? Sanctioned or not?


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> So divine guidance should lead people to many different translations of “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”? I’m not the first one on this thread to make the claim that believers have special understanding of scripture that is simply unavailable to nonbelievers. It was one of your brothers who made that claim. Are they being resentful by making the comment? I guess only you would know. I just find it fascinating that one deity would lead you all in so many different and contradictory directions over the meaning of what appears to me to be a very simple and clear verse.



That's because its called a personal relationship. You dont have one so you dont understand one. So you think you are going to deny GOD and at the same time build a relationship?


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> That's because its called a personal relationship. You dont have one so you dont understand one. So you think you are going to deny GOD and at the same time build a relationship?



So the true meaning of “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” depends on ones personal relationship with the author of that line? Does that mean different rules for different Christians? Some are commanded to kill witches but for others it would be a warped violation of gods law? Sometimes it’s good to kill a witch and other times it’s evil? This all sounds subjective and arbitrary Ritchie.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> So the true meaning of “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” depends on ones personal relationship with the author of that line? Does that mean different rules for different Christians? Some are commanded to kill witches but for others it would be a warped violation of gods law? Sometimes it’s good to kill a witch and other times it’s evil? This all sounds subjective and arbitrary Ritchie.



Your confusing mans law with Gods. Mans law is arbitrary. Gods is not. Many get them confused.


----------



## Artfuldodger

red neck richie said:


> Your confusing mans law with Gods. Mans law is arbitrary. Gods is not. Many get them confused.



Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Leviticus 20:27
'Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'"

These are man's laws? I don't have an answer but it appears to be God's law. Now maybe the New Covenant ended this law. Maybe the New Covenant ended all of God's Laws except the New Testament's great commandments.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Your confusing mans law with Gods. Mans law is arbitrary. Gods is not. Many get them confused.



Nope we are talking strictly about scripture and what it sanctions or doesn’t sanction. You boys can’t seem to come to a consensus even on this one scripture. Better head back to the drawing board.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> First let me say it is not for me to judge who is a true believer and who isn't. That is between you and God.
> Jesus died for every sin past,present, and future. Your's, mine, and all of mankind. He was the sacrificial lamb that had to die to cover our sins in blood. All sin including what happened in the old testament required a blood sacrifice. Jesus, being the only sinless Man to ever live paid for our sins with His blood. We are then washed in the blood.
> 
> You said "I've read that the commandments were given to show us that we couldn't not sin and thus needed a Savior." You are correct, the law was meant to condem and Christ sacrifice was to save. We all sin, have you ever lied, broke the speed limit, yes we are to obey government because God allows government to be, as long as it doesn't go against God's word.
> 
> You said "Is it  a "perfect once and for all sacrifice" for all who believe or is it not? I mean it didn't work for the posers. " You are again correct it is once and for all. All who believe and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Accept the sacrifice He made on Calvary. Love and believe with all your heart. It will not work for those who do not truly believe.
> 
> You said "In a more simple way, do you see salvation as grace only or do you see some Lordship Salvation works in the mix as well?


"

Salvation is by grace only, God/ Jesus Christ did all that needed doing. Remember when Christ was dying He said "IT IS FINISHED". There is nothing more to be done except Believe, Love, with all your heart. No one really knows but you and God. Thats whats so cool to me. It is personal and no one else can judge me.[/QUOTE]

Amen, like Paul said, "and such were some of you but your were washed."


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> Look if I am making any one mad that is not my intention and if I need to get off ya'lls thread I will certainly honor your wishes. I don't mean to offend all.


In my opinion you haven't said a single offensive thing to anybody. Don't worry about it. We ask tough questions and don't pull any punches and we expect you to do the same.
We have already figured out that you aren't here to purposely offend anybody and are glad you have joined in.


----------



## Israel

Many are going to be broken on the wheel of seeking to defend christianity for it is at best only appearing as a "set of beliefs".

And all _systems_...whether seeking to ennoble themselves as "belief systems"  or "_religious_ belief systems" as though they make of themselves immune then to the most diligent of probing must fail, and fall.

God has not given a "set of beliefs", for set by definition is a finite thing. A thing that merely distinguishes itself as a _thing_ apart from other_ things_. But remains, nevertheless, a _thing._ 

But God has delivered up His very own Son, Jesus Christ, made willing to appear as nothing more than another thing amongst things. And the _things_ we may find of Christ even as we may be inclined to identify them _as things_ we soon learn are not, and never anything less than the ministry to us of _person._
A _thing_ we call truth, a _thing_ we call life, even a thing we call "the gospel", sought out in things to make plain to _other things_ are only made plain through the occupation of Him, who is no _thing._ (yet who can see the immeasurable grace in His willingness to appear as such?)

And so we are the mere things speaking, writing, telling one another _of things_. Nevertheless Christ speaks in the midst of all, not because he _knows_ the truth, or _has_ the truth...but is Himself, the Truth.

Till then we are but things seeking to handle _it_...but then we see, we are but things being handled, and all and only rightly so, by the Lord of _all things_.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> Questions for both Ray and Ritchie. Is the killing of witches sanctioned by your religion? How about slavery? Sanctioned or not?



There are truly things in the Bible that I personally do not understand and never will on this side of the grave. But I live by Faith and Trust the one true King. I don't get hung up on one thing because I will miss every thing. No slavery is bad. Did it exist? Yes. Does it exist today? Yes. It is still wrong, what part of loving your neighbour as yourself does it fulfill. Murder is wrong. Thou shalt not murder. Witch craft and the likes is wrong. Am I going to kill a witch, no, Thou shalt not murder. Am I going to love a witch, yes. We are told to love the sinner and hate the sin. The Old Testament says to kill homosexuals. I have a nephew who thinks he is a homosexual, am I going to kill him,no I love him and pray for him. Is he going to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored Yes, if, he does not repent and turn to Jesus Christ. But that is his decision not mine. I do not judge him, I pray for him, and only he and God will know how the story ends. So be careful what you get hung up on it may keep you from moving closer to God.


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> There are truly things in the Bible that I personally do not understand and never will on this side of the grave. But I live by Faith and Trust the one true King. I don't get hung up on one thing because I will miss every thing. No slavery is bad. Did it exist? Yes. Does it exist today? Yes. It is still wrong, what part of loving your neighbour as yourself does it fulfill. Murder is wrong. Thou shalt not murder. Witch craft and the likes is wrong. Am I going to kill a witch, no, Thou shalt not murder. Am I going to love a witch, yes. We are told to love the sinner and hate the sin. The Old Testament says to kill homosexuals. I have a nephew who thinks he is a homosexual, am I going to kill him,no I love him and pray for him. Is he going to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored Yes, if, he does not repent and turn to Jesus Christ. But that is his decision not mine. I do not judge him, I pray for him, and only he and God will know how the story ends. So be careful what you get hung up on it may keep you from moving closer to God.


So if the nephew is gay but follows Jesus as his saviour.....
Does he go to heaven or not?

Ps, I couldn't help but notice you ignored all of my Bible verses that show God chooses who follows him. They were a few pages back...


----------



## NCHillbilly

Geezer Ray said:


> No, that's not what was said at all. Eat all the shrimp cocktail while wearing polyester and wool and cotton, while wearing jeans. Adultery is still a sin and so is making and worshipping a graven image. Jesus freed us from the law at the cross. But sin is still sin regardless. If you feel bound by the law , when did you last offer a sacrifice ,or wave offering, when did you last celebrate the Year Jubilee and give your land back to whom you bought it?



So, all the aspects of the law that are inconvenient for our current lifestyle are now nullified, but some of them are still in effect-even though they were all listed together as commands from God in the OT? So, I can now trim the corners of my beard, and not kill witches, not put homosexuals to death, and I can now boil baby goats in their mother's milk, sow more than one type of seed in a field, and I can go to work on Sunday. But I still can't make graven images or covet my neighbor's stuff?

Who gets to pick which parts of the OT law that we get to ignore, and which parts we still have to follow?


----------



## NCHillbilly

Geezer Ray said:


> But, that doesn't change what God said.





Geezer Ray said:


> Not problematic at all. All scripture in the Bible is the Word inspired by God.





Artfuldodger said:


> Exodus 22:18
> Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
> 
> Leviticus 20:27
> 'Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'"



How is that reconciled?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> I was just poking fun Ray. Maybe you don’t see it but you folks are constantly moving the goal posts. I can’t help but poke fun at it a bit. I bet you’d say murder should be illegal because the Ten Commandments tells us thou shalt not kill. Yet that same book says to kill witches and you then say it’s a perversion of scripture to follow through on that because of the crucifixion. It’s like you’re rolling down the buffet line deciding which rules still apply and which don’t and we are watching you do it.  People are still being killed to this day because of that bible verse. It’s really a bit insulting to those folks who have lost their lives to pretend it doesn’t say what it says and mean what it says or that Christians should somehow know not to take that verse seriously but take others seriously. If we can discern which parts of the Bible should be followed and which parts shouldn’t be followed why bother with the book in the first place?
> 
> No offense taken or intended.




Always amazed at those who can stand on both sides of an issue with their feet planted firmly in mid-air.   Denounce injustice, yet pronounce morality is relative.  Pronounce truth is relative, yet denounce perceived untruths.  Demand total freedom, yet renounce personal accountability.  Rail against God, yet deny he exists.  The inane hypocrisy of it all.  

Atheism,  it’s truely a religion whose sole defining undergirding is insanity.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Always amazed at those who can stand on both sides of an issue with their feet planted firmly in mid-air.   Denounce injustice, yet pronounce morality is relative.  Pronounce truth is relative, yet denounce perceived untruths.  Demand total freedom, yet renounce personal accountability.  Rail against God, yet deny he exists.  The inane hypocrisy of it all.
> 
> Atheism,  it’s truely a religion whose sole defining undergirding is insanity.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think I see a theme here on this forum. Christians cans pretty much call Atheism insane but if an Atheist says anything bad a bout Christianity, it's a personal attack.

If we do feel the other's beliefs are insane or whatever then we both have to have thick enough skin to take it without assuming it's a personal attack. It is a two-way street with both sides sometimes being guilty of almost crossing the line.

It's usually a general attack on the concept, not the individuals in the group. 
One group along with homosexuality and drunkedness, aren't even allowed to harbor anger, hatred, boastfulness, resentment, bitterness, verbal abuse, or even gossip.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


>





His meltdown when UGA lost to Alabama must have been epic.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Geezer Ray said:


> There are truly things in the Bible that I personally do not understand and never will on this side of the grave. But I live by Faith and Trust the one true King. I don't get hung up on one thing because I will miss every thing. No slavery is bad. Did it exist? Yes. Does it exist today? Yes. It is still wrong, what part of loving your neighbour as yourself does it fulfill. Murder is wrong. Thou shalt not murder. Witch craft and the likes is wrong. Am I going to kill a witch, no, Thou shalt not murder. Am I going to love a witch, yes. We are told to love the sinner and hate the sin. The Old Testament says to kill homosexuals. I have a nephew who thinks he is a homosexual, am I going to kill him,no I love him and pray for him. Is he going to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored Yes, if, he does not repent and turn to Jesus Christ. But that is his decision not mine. I do not judge him, I pray for him, and only he and God will know how the story ends. So be careful what you get hung up on it may keep you from moving closer to God.



Good thing your nephew isn't a also a drunkard or a person who has trouble forgiving others. I have a nephew that has lust in his heart. 
I thought the "once and for all" worked for him as well but I guess it doesn't.

Maybe the pickin' and choosin' is between that person and God. A personal relationship if you will. That only God knows our hearts. Maybe the Great Commandments changed it all. That it went from strict rules to loving Gad and your neighbor. Perhaps that is what Jesus came to teach. Forgiveness.

Matthew 6:14-15 - For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Is this doing the will of God? Following the Great Commandment instead of the old commandments?


----------



## atlashunter

Ray, thanks for your answer. I’d like to follow up on the slavery question. I asked if the Bible sanctions slavery. You said slavery is wrong. Can you show me a scripture that says that? Aren’t slaves in the New Testament commanded to fear and obey their masters? We got enough detail in the Bible to know how long our hair should be. It’s pretty detailed on acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Where does it say slavery is wrong?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Maybe God's plan was to present a list of Laws that he knew we couldn't keep and would thus learn we needed salvation. Perhaps he presented them to one nation to show the world who his Chosen really were.
That in the process, we went from following a set of rules to one rule, "Love God and your fellow man." 

It could be Christianity is a two part program. One for gaining salvation from breaking the rules that we never could keep in the first place and two, learning what it means to love God and neighbor.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

There is a difference in slavery as we view it now. There was terrible bad..... and there was good. The bible gives indication that we could in a since become a slave through a loan, for payback. As in if someone wanted cash, I could give it to them and they work it off until paid. This not being wages.... but being slavery in some uses of the word. The Israelites, wanted to "go back" as if their enslavement was not so bad. Yet, I don't disagree that slavery was bad, I just mean to imply that it was not all bad. I was talking to an old timer near where I fish. He was telling me about growing up with slave kids. His dad owned slaves. He said they loved his dad. That his dad would do anything for them. That they had a key to the smoke house, that they were trusted. That the children of these slaves were his playmates growing up. That they would have never left if told to do so, etc. I say these things only to point out that there was good   and there was bad. The bible does not give us differentiation between the two.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe God's plan was to present a list of Laws that he knew we couldn't keep and would thus learn we needed salvation. Perhaps he presented them to one nation to show the world who his Chosen really were.
> That in the process, we went from following a set of rules to one rule, "Love God and your fellow man."
> 
> It could be Christianity is a two part program. One for gaining salvation from breaking the rules that we never could keep in the first place and two, learning what it means to love God and neighbor.


Ever pondered how this revelation was to mankind.... and not individual man? Those living in the OT died trying to keep the law. It's the later human race whom would evaluate that if 2000 years of trying produced no real change, then we likely could not change our "nature" either. I can see how nonbelievers would question why would God give a lifetime road map that lead to a dead end


----------



## oldfella1962

atlashunter said:


> It’s two different accounts of his death. We already know from both the gospels and non canonical gospels that the oral traditions on which they were based contain contradictions and embellishments. Is this what one should expect from an inerrant work authored by an infallible creator of the universe? Or is it what one should expect of humans?



I heard a pastor explain embellishments & inaccuracy & conflicting stories: this only proves that people are so inspired & excited by god that they sometimes got carried away by the urgency of spreading their experiences.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Also not related but the Seminole slaves were allowed to carry guns. I guess it depended on the owner.

But I can see the mindset of  trying to justify which things in the Bible that were accepted back in those times that isn't today. Look also at women's rights. Even up into the 60's in America. 

I try to consider that when I think of how my Dad who is 96 views Blacks and women. I've never seen him disrespect either in person but I have when it was just me and him. Indoctrination is a hard thing to overcome.
If you are taught that cops are the enemy your whole life then you will think that way when you are grown.

It takes a fair amount of soul searching to realize what the Great Commandments mean. Can you love your neighbor and kill him? Can you love your neighbor and not forgive him? Forgiveness is hard. Do we really have to forgive people in order for God to forgive us? Forget homosexuality, only 5% suffer from that, what about forgiveness keeping one from the Kingdom?

If hanging a witch is now murder, why wasn't it then? If slavery was allowed and accepted then, why not now? If Blacks and women were treated as 2nd class citizens by White Christian men in the 40's and 50's, why is it not accepted now?
If God doesn't change, then do we assume people do? Perhaps part of God's plan is progressive. Maybe he expects each new generation to be better at the loving his neighbor command.

Maybe each new generation learns to drop a few more old testament rules and ways and learns a bit more about actually helping.
Each generation of Christians learns to drop some of the legalism of the Old for the Great Commandment of the New.
Eventually maybe we won't pick and choose which sins will keep one out of God's Kingdom and learn that we are washed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> Ever pondered how this revelation was to mankind.... and not individual man? Those living in the OT died trying to keep the law. It's the later human race whom would evaluate that if 2000 years of trying produced no real change, then we likely could not change our "nature" either. I can see how nonbelievers would question why would God give a lifetime road map that lead to a dead end



Yes I have pondered that. Yeah, why was the trial period so long?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

oldfella1962 said:


> I heard a pastor explain embellishments & inaccuracy & conflicting stories: this only proves that people are so inspired & excited by god that they sometimes got carried away by the urgency of spreading their experiences.


I think we need more of these pastors whom don't hide these things


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes I have pondered that. Yeah, why was the trial period so long?


I think it's OK for us to question and ponder these things as long as we assume there is a good answer that we just don't understand, yet


----------



## oldfella1962

NCHillbilly said:


> I agree with that. Most sincere Christians I know are for the most part folks that I would class as good people.
> 
> What I disagree with is the assertion many Christians seem to believe: that there are no good or moral people who are not Christians.



I think most Christians believe that there are indeed plenty of "good & moral" people who are not Christians, it's just that these people will go to hades because being "good & moral" doesn't cut it. They may make their society a better place, but they are still sinners so their reward is eternal punishment. Nobody ever said life (or the afterlife) is fair.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.


Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

What is the will of God? To not have jealousy or lust in our heat? To feed the poor? To forgive others? 

Some how perhaps Jesus did die "once and for all" for our sins but we still must do the will of God? Maybe believing that Jesus died "once and for all" sins is doing the will of God in Matthews.

How does one separate the legalism in Christianity from the grace of God? Either it is or it isn't, can we as men pick and choose the legalism to separate?


----------



## Artfuldodger

oldfella1962 said:


> I think most Christians believe that there are indeed plenty of "good & moral" people who are not Christians, it's just that these people will go to hades because being "good & moral" doesn't cut it. They may make their society a better place, but they are still sinners so their reward is eternal punishment. Nobody ever said life (or the afterlife) is fair.



That's a dilemma I see within Christianity. Either it's based on following the rules(morality) or accepting the fact that we can't and thus need salvation.
Either the rules are still in place or they aren't. Either Jesus died for our sins or he didn't. Either our slates are wiped clean or they aren't. 
If the gays are denied entrance to the Kingdom then so are the drunkards and people with lust in their hearts.
Either God will forgive those who forgive others or he won't.


----------



## oldfella1962

ambush80 said:


> Christians I've known say that being a Christian isn't about becoming sinless. it's about being saved.  That means going to Heaven.  That's the draw.  Seems carnal to me.



but consider there is no middle ground - maybe they don't want to go to heaven as much as they want to avoid eternal fire torment. If there was no eternal torment but there is a heaven, would they still want to be saved? Would they give 100 percent to being the best Christian they can be?

Or flip it around and there is eternal torment but no heaven. When the Christian dies they cease to exist, but at least they escape eternal torture.


----------



## Artfuldodger

oldfella1962 said:


> I think most Christians believe that there are indeed plenty of "good & moral" people who are not Christians, it's just that these people will go to hades because being "good & moral" doesn't cut it. They may make their society a better place, but they are still sinners so their reward is eternal punishment. Nobody ever said life (or the afterlife) is fair.



Actually from discussions on here the people who do have morals must get them from a belief in a god or God. They believe that Atheist get their morals by default from being born in a country that does believe in a god or God.

In other words if you were born on an island where no one believed in a god, then you would not develop morals. That one must believe in a god or at least pick them up by default from the believers.

True they do believe many people are good and have morals but will not gain eternal life from being good.


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> I think it's OK for us to question and ponder these things as long as we assume there is a good answer that we just don't understand, yet



I think if we apply Occams Razor there are good answers that are easy to understand. They just make some folks uncomfortable.


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> Actually from discussions on here the people who do have morals must get them from a belief in a god or God. They believe that Atheist get their morals by default from being born in a country that does believe in a god or God.
> 
> In other words if you were born on an island where no one believed in a god, then you would not develop morals. That one must believe in a god or at least pick them up by default from the believers.
> 
> True they do believe many people are good and have morals but will not gain eternal life from being good.



Research the Piraha tribe.


----------



## oldfella1962

Geezer Ray said:


> Are you saying Muslim God is same as Christian God?
> 
> Atrocities committed by Christians have happened but it stems from Man's warped interpretation not from God's commands.



You do know that in the Old Testament god specifically commanded his people (no not Christians because Jesus wasn't even born/died yet) to commit incredibly violent & horrific slaughters on his/his chosen peoples enemies, right? You can google that all day, there are many examples. Those were certainly not warped interpretations. And isn't it true that god never changes? His nature never changes? He's the same today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow. 

And the phrase "his ways are not our ways" when god does or did things that seemed crazy and we can't understand it but we should still accept it is not much comfort to be honest.


----------



## Artfuldodger

oldfella1962 said:


> but consider there is no middle ground - maybe they don't want to go to heaven as much as they want to avoid eternal fire torment. If there was no eternal torment but there is a heaven, would they still want to be saved? Would they give 100 percent to being the best Christian they can be?
> 
> Or flip it around and there is eternal torment but no heaven. When the Christian dies they cease to exist, but at least they escape eternal torture.



I remember a discussion on the Christian forum where some believers said they wouldn't see the point of being a Christian if there was no he11. The draw for them was salvation from he11, not eternal life.

To me it's more about gaining eternal life vs everlasting death. Interesting thought on the flip. That one would die when he dies if he is good but go to he11 if he was bad.

Still though even among scripture is a concept that the "evil" go to He11 or die when they die and the "good" go to Heaven and eternal life.

Even with the concept of salvation being about forgiveness,"once and for all'" the good vs evil is still a big part of Christianity and salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think Muslims believe they descend  from Ismael the brother of Isaac. Jews also believe in the same God. So does Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses.

It's more about believing in Jesus as well as God.


----------



## oldfella1962

atlashunter said:


> Here’s another one about Judas. What did he do with the money he got from betraying Jesus? Acts says he used it to buy a field. Matthew says he returned it to the priests who had paid him. Which is it?



or maybe none of the above. He got suckered into a "time share" deal in Florida. He lost everything, had to borrow money from some bad people and....well do the math.


----------



## Artfuldodger

660griz said:


> Research the Piraha tribe.



 Interesting tribe. Primitive communism with no defined leaders.
They do appear to have some pretty good morals to not believe in a god.
Maybe they gain their morals from a belief in spirits.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> I think if we apply Occams Razor there are good answers that are easy to understand. They just make some folks uncomfortable.


Had to google that.  Seems like the "logical thing" given a name


----------



## welderguy

oldfella1962 said:


> or maybe none of the above. He got suckered into a "time share" deal in Florida. He lost everything, had to borrow money from some bad people and....well do the math.




I could hang out with this guy.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Matthew 7:21
> "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
> 
> 
> Matthew 12:50
> For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
> 
> What is the will of God? To not have jealousy or lust in our heat? To feed the poor? To forgive others?
> 
> Some how perhaps Jesus did die "once and for all" for our sins but we still must do the will of God? Maybe believing that Jesus died "once and for all" sins is doing the will of God in Matthews.
> 
> How does one separate the legalism in Christianity from the grace of God? Either it is or it isn't, can we as men pick and choose the legalism to separate?





> What is the will of God? To not have jealousy or lust in our heat? To feed the poor? To forgive others?


I think maybe that's what the Pope was getting at in the video.
The Atheist father by having his children baptized was in effect "doing the will of God" and God would be pleased by that and might cut him slack.
If one believes the only way into Heaven is to believe  then he's toast.
If one believes God can put anybody that pleases him in Heaven that he wants to then maybe the Pope is on the right track.
Pretty sure scripture can be found that would support either and both.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> I think if we apply Occams Razor there are good answers that are easy to understand. They just make some folks uncomfortable.


LOL, I believe in logic.... However, I,  mercy, I don't want to get cornered in a debate with you guys, but.... I don't see a big bang, walaa, here we are, as logical either. Did we just get lucky that women are accommodating  to us men? Or was that by design? Oh, no, I'm  going to go hide and return next month. I know you guys are much more prepared for this sort of thing than I. However, I do acknowledge that believing in a unseen God is not logical either.


----------



## welderguy

NCHillbilly said:


> So, all the aspects of the law that are inconvenient for our current lifestyle are now nullified, but some of them are still in effect-even though they were all listed together as commands from God in the OT? So, I can now trim the corners of my beard, and not kill witches, not put homosexuals to death, and I can now boil baby goats in their mother's milk, sow more than one type of seed in a field, and I can go to work on Sunday. But I still can't make graven images or covet my neighbor's stuff?
> 
> Who gets to pick which parts of the OT law that we get to ignore, and which parts we still have to follow?



If you are under grace(born again), you are no longer under the old law.
BUT, if you are under grace, you have a law written in your heart. It's no longer required to follow the law written on stone tablets, because Jesus fulfilled that for us. There's a better law written on tablets of our flesh, in our heart. Beautiful isn't it? And so liberating also. Aaaah grace!


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I believe in logic.... However, I,  mercy, I don't want to get cornered in a debate with you guys, but.... I don't see a big bang, walaa, here we are, as logical either. Did we just get lucky that women are accommodating  to us men? Or was that by design? Oh, no, I'm  going to go hide and return next month. I know you guys are much more prepared for this sort of thing than I. However, I do acknowledge that believing in a unseen God is not logical either.



I think we have good observable evidence that supports the Big Bang. What, if anything, was or is beyond that we can only speculate on. Perhaps new evidence will change that but I’m ok with saying “I don’t know what is beyond that observable horizon”. I do know that every time we thought we had found where the point beyond which there was no more when we got new evidence that proved the assumption wrong. So I’m not prepared to make that assumption. Let’s follow where the evidence leads us and let’s readily admit where knowledge ends and ignorance begins regardless of how uncomfortable those answers make us feel.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> Actually from discussions on here the people who do have morals must get them from a belief in a god or God. They believe that Atheist get their morals by default from being born in a country that does believe in a god or God.
> 
> In other words if you were born on an island where no one believed in a god, then you would not develop morals. That one must believe in a god or at least pick them up by default from the believers.
> 
> True they do believe many people are good and have morals but will not gain eternal life from being good.



What if belief in a God sprang from natural human morals instead of the other way around?


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I believe in logic.... However, I,  mercy, I don't want to get cornered in a debate with you guys, but.... I don't see a big bang, walaa, here we are, as logical either. Did we just get lucky that women are accommodating  to us men? Or was that by design? Oh, no, I'm  going to go hide and return next month. I know you guys are much more prepared for this sort of thing than I. However, I do acknowledge that believing in a unseen God is not logical either.



I see a Big Bang, BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years worth of constant particles, matter, chemicals ,elements forming, mixing, interacting,  more BILLIONS and BILLIONS of more years worth of the same and after trillions of times per second of mixing and mingling throughout all those BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years a combination happened that allowed a certain recipe to form under conditions that were in place to allow it to happen. 

The amount of time is incomprehensible. 
One "try" and life is improbable. 
Trillions upon Trillions of "tries" per second over 12+ BILLION years and life is Inevitable.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> I see a Big Bang, BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years worth of constant particles, matter, chemicals ,elements forming, mixing, interacting,  more BILLIONS and BILLIONS of more years worth of the same and after trillions of times per second of mixing and mingling throughout all those BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years a combination happened that allowed a certain recipe to form under conditions that were in place to allow it to happen.
> 
> The amount of time is incomprehensible.
> One "try" and life is improbable.
> Trillions upon Trillions of "tries" per second over 12+ BILLION years and life is Inevitable.


In my mind, this requires more faith than my beliefs?


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> In my mind, this requires more faith than my beliefs?



It is mind boggling but what in your opinion was going on over a span of 13.5 billion years in the Universe and 4 billion years just on our planet?


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> In my mind, this requires more faith than my beliefs?


Why?
The concept of mixing things together to get something else is a pretty familiar one.
Open a cook book and look at a recipe -


> particles, matter, chemicals ,elements forming, mixing, interacting,


----------



## NCHillbilly

1gr8bldr said:


> In my mind, this requires more faith than my beliefs?



Where did God come from?


----------



## ky55

1gr8bldr said:


> In my mind, this requires more faith than my beliefs?



I’ll bet on that possibility every time-
Over the impossibility of magic. 


*


----------



## 1gr8bldr

I acknowledge that not one single aspect of my beliefs are supported by anything other than faith. No proof, at all. And I have had no personal encounters with a talking donkey, nor has God ever spoken to me audibly. However, if I were to begin as an agnostic, acknowledging that a higher power that I am unaware of exists.... the Christian or better yet, Paul's realization that all his good attempts at trying to please God.... only magnified his inner nature as corrupt. He saw where this was headed, with him being one of those religious icons whom loved praise from men, whom tried to use religion as a footstool to be recognized as the Michael Jordan of religion of that day. Whom would be one of those high headed religious better than everybody else. Upon this revelation, he was disgusted with what he saw, and declared that he destroyed this temple made by man and be raised a new, where he considered all that brick and block of his works as nothing more than rubble. Now he would no longer say, by my own hands I have worked to deserve God's presence, but declare "by the grace of God, I am what I am" his work in me, not my own best attempts. This resonates with me. You almost have to be in a church for it to show itself.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

NCHillbilly said:


> Where did God come from?


Where did the universe assuming god does not exist come from? LOL, I don't know, hardly even been out of my state, much less explore time travel


----------



## 1gr8bldr

ky55 said:


> I’ll bet on that possibility every time-
> Over the impossibility of magic.
> 
> 
> *


And I concede that logical should win over magic. Only it's also not without holes. LOL, Atlas taught me something Occams Razor is likely validating your view over mine


----------



## 1gr8bldr

LOL, Geezer Ray is probably enjoying a break since I steeped into the fire. Hey, but I do enjoy this forum. Great bunch of guys whom make us think


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> It is mind boggling but what in your opinion was going on over a span of 13.5 billion years in the Universe and 4 billion years just on our planet?


LOL, I realize that this sounds elementary...but I believe the universe was created "with age on it" just as Adam was not an infant. And again, no proof what so ever to offer.


----------



## ky55

1gr8bldr said:


> And I concede that logical should win over magic. Only it's also not without holes. LOL, Atlas taught me something Occams Razor is likely validating your view over mine



Yep,
still the simplest choice, even on a complicated subject.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

WaltL1 said:


> Why?
> The concept of mixing things together to get something else is a pretty familiar one.
> Open a cook book and look at a recipe -


Whether you realize it or not, it sounds as crazy as our talking donkey


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I realize that this sounds elementary...but I believe the universe was created "with age on it" just as Adam was not an infant. And again, no proof what so ever to offer.



Well, Adam and his modern human looks and traits was VERY late to the game.

He is a perfect example of why the Biblical version of man's creation is flawed.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> Whether you realize it or not, it sounds as crazy as our talking donkey



Life along with Talking Donkeys are an expression of the available ingredients.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

WaltL1 said:


> Why?
> The concept of mixing things together to get something else is a pretty familiar one.
> Open a cook book and look at a recipe -


What is the thoughts in regard to this as far as the assumption of mine, that if it were so, that man and woman had to be created, banged into existance,  at the same time, same local in order to recreate.... Basically, which came first, the chicken or the egg. In order to recreate, it required a man and a woman to be created. Or is there some other deep theory to this. I totally have never studied these things. LOL, hoping like crazy, you don't have an answer for this...


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> Well, Adam and his modern human looks and traits was VERY late to the game.
> 
> He is a perfect example of why the Biblical version of man's creation is flawed.


Is this implying that we/Adam  came from monkeys?


----------



## Israel

1gr8bldr said:


> I acknowledge that not one single aspect of my beliefs are supported by anything other than faith. No proof, at all. And I have had no personal encounters with a talking donkey, nor has God ever spoken to me audibly. However, if I were to begin as an agnostic, acknowledging that a higher power that I am unaware of exists.... the Christian or better yet, Paul's realization that all his good attempts at trying to please God.... only magnified his inner nature as corrupt. He saw where this was headed, with him being one of those religious icons whom loved praise from men, whom tried to use religion as a footstool to be recognized as the Michael Jordan of religion of that day. Whom would be one of those high headed religious better than everybody else. Upon this revelation, he was disgusted with what he saw, and declared that he destroyed this temple made by man and be raised a new, where he considered all that brick and block of his works as nothing more than rubble. Now he would no longer say, by my own hands I have worked to deserve God's presence, but declare "by the grace of God, I am what I am" his work in me, not my own best attempts. This resonates with me. You almost have to be in a church for it to show itself.



Preeminence and the drive to it, can never be dismissed "lightly". (We who believe actually do believe it took a slaughter to deal with it).  We who do believe also know that just knowing about a thing...or that it "exists" can be very far from the knowing of it. And just knowing of it...again...does not guarantee deliverance _from_ it.

But at the very least it should be neither strange to us to know of its being (striving to conquer over others) nor lost on us that a very high price must be revealed to see it dealt with properly. How can we believe any man doesn't struggle to "be a big shot" in whatever measure he measures this...unless there be a man in whom such _is not there _for the manifesting?  

Otherwise how can we not be continually lost in that conflict? The man who sets out to prove himself anything must come up against the greater. In truth (though he may barely apprehend it) the whole game of it is predicated upon this...it invites it...it requires it. It...demands it.
So, religious man has his way of playing this game. But so does financial man...political man, medical man, subscriber to forums man...etc. Bring any two persons together, or allow any two...and a contest has begun. Some just have more obvious and terrible outcomes...but no man, or woman ever married...doubts this entrance into contest.

This is true in all relationships I have ever seen...but one.
The Father and Son.


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> In my mind, this requires more faith than my beliefs?



Does it require faith? Or is it based on a series of testable hypotheses that don't require faith? I think the difference in track record between faith and the scientific method is pretty clear.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> Is this implying that we/Adam  came from monkeys?



Now you have been around here long enough to know that I have never said, implied or even suggested that we came from monkeys.
Without ever getting into the common ancestor or any pre-human species....there is a lot of physical evidence of humans that are much less evolved than the biblical version of Adam and Eve. Bottom line is that if Adam and Eve actually existed they may be examples of some of the first of their Ethnicity or Nationality but at the very least other humans have graced the planet much longer than those two. 
My best guess is that Adam and Eve are symbolic examples of a writers version of the start of the Jewish race.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> Does it require faith? Or is it based on a series of testable hypotheses that don't require faith? I think the difference in track record between faith and the scientific method is pretty clear.


I suppose that my mind can not fandom a billion years ago. Thus would require of me that I have faith in these test. Sorry, not a logical answer


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> Now you have been around here long enough to know that I have never said, implied or even suggested that we came from monkeys.
> Without ever getting into the common ancestor or any pre-human species....there is a lot of physical evidence of humans that are much less evolved than the biblical version of Adam and Eve. Bottom line is that if Adam and Eve actually existed they may be examples of some of the first of their Ethnicity or Nationality but at the very least other humans have graced the planet much longer than those two.
> My best guess is that Adam and Eve are symbolic examples of the start of the Jewish race.


 LOL, I assumed the "late" incorrectly. Sorry, but I thought this was the standard atheist belief. I'm interested, and somewhat inquiring of these thoughts of you guys, because I don't know. I would like to know more about the atheist ideas, yet it's likely, highly in depth, time consuming and mind overwhelming. Is there a short version so that I can be up to date? I'm embarrassed, because No good apologist knows not what the other side believes. That's why you guys do so well debating "the book"


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Also not related but the Seminole slaves were allowed to carry guns. I guess it depended on the owner.
> 
> But I can see the mindset of  trying to justify which things in the Bible that were accepted back in those times that isn't today. Look also at women's rights. Even up into the 60's in America.
> 
> I try to consider that when I think of how my Dad who is 96 views Blacks and women. I've never seen him disrespect either in person but I have when it was just me and him. Indoctrination is a hard thing to overcome.
> If you are taught that cops are the enemy your whole life then you will think that way when you are grown.
> 
> It takes a fair amount of soul searching to realize what the Great Commandments mean. Can you love your neighbor and kill him? Can you love your neighbor and not forgive him? Forgiveness is hard. Do we really have to forgive people in order for God to forgive us? Forget homosexuality, only 5% suffer from that, what about forgiveness keeping one from the Kingdom?
> 
> If hanging a witch is now murder, why wasn't it then? If slavery was allowed and accepted then, why not now? If Blacks and women were treated as 2nd class citizens by White Christian men in the 40's and 50's, why is it not accepted now?
> If God doesn't change, then do we assume people do? Perhaps part of God's plan is progressive. Maybe he expects each new generation to be better at the loving his neighbor command.
> 
> Maybe each new generation learns to drop a few more old testament rules and ways and learns a bit more about actually helping.
> Each generation of Christians learns to drop some of the legalism of the Old for the Great Commandment of the New.
> Eventually maybe we won't pick and choose which sins will keep one out of God's Kingdom and learn that we are washed.



It was secular humanism that reformed Christianity.  We continue with that struggle today.


----------



## 660griz

1gr8bldr said:


> Is there a short version so that I can be up to date?



I believe in one less God than you.


----------



## NCHillbilly

1gr8bldr said:


> What is the thoughts in regard to this as far as the assumption of mine, that if it were so, that man and woman had to be created, banged into existance,  at the same time, same local in order to recreate.... Basically, which came first, the chicken or the egg. In order to recreate, it required a man and a woman to be created. Or is there some other deep theory to this. I totally have never studied these things. LOL, hoping like crazy, you don't have an answer for this...



According to most scientific evidence, one man and one woman couldn't create a viable population-not enough genetic diversity to produce healthy generations of offspring with varied resistance to various environmental factors. Any time the population of an endangered species gets below a level of a hundred or so, it's very unlikely that they will ever come back, due to that very thing. This is especially true if you believe that Eve was a genetic clone of Adam, created from one of his ribs.


----------



## NCHillbilly

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I assumed the "late" incorrectly. Sorry, but I thought this was the standard atheist belief. I'm interested, and somewhat inquiring of these thoughts of you guys, because I don't know. I would like to know more about the atheist ideas, yet it's likely, highly in depth, time consuming and mind overwhelming. Is there a short version so that I can be up to date? I'm embarrassed, because No good apologist knows not what the other side believes. That's why you guys do so well debating "the book"



No scientific theory has ever suggested that humans came from monkeys. Now, if you can watch an orangutan or bonobo chimp for awhile and convince yourself that we are not closely related even without seeing the established DNA evidence, well then, I don't know what to tell you.

BTW, I am not an atheist.


----------



## oldfella1962

NCHillbilly said:


> What if belief in a God sprang from natural human morals instead of the other way around?



it would make sense. As humans (or proto humans) got more complex abstract reasoning and higher thinking and emotions would develop. A need to explain & organize why humans behave the way we do + our active imaginations might be why almost all cultures have religion or at least spiritual leanings.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

NCHillbilly said:


> According to most scientific evidence, one man and one woman couldn't create a viable population-not enough genetic diversity to produce healthy generations of offspring with varied resistance to various environmental factors. Any time the population of an endangered species gets below a level of a hundred or so, it's very unlikely that they will ever come back, due to that very thing. This is especially true if you believe that Eve was a genetic clone of Adam, created from one of his ribs.



Great point.... so how does that evolution thing work again, seeing it was one organism at a time developing the new trait to help it survive?


----------



## NCHillbilly

NE GA Pappy said:


> Great point.... so how does that evolution thing work again, seeing it was one organism at a time developing the new trait to help it survive?



Whole populations of organisms adapt and change over time, new species don't just pop into existence one organism at a time, new and different. You can see it happening today, still, commonly. That is exactly the point of genetic variation being the key-you need large numbers of individuals with different characteristics that might help them survive changed conditions, and pass on their genes.


----------



## oldfella1962

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I realize that this sounds elementary...but I believe the universe was created "with age on it" just as Adam was not an infant. And again, no proof what so ever to offer.



I'm not sure what you are saying here: do you believe (some people do) that god made the universe (and our planet) appear older than they really are to test our faith? In other words to "take the bait" of believing in science versus accepting the creation story as it is written in the bible - than everything was created in 6 days and man was formed from clay, and named all the animals and so forth? 

I've said this before - it would take less faith to believe that the bible was 100 percent accurate (hence god is real) centuries ago than it takes now. There was no vast, almost unlimited amount of scientific data to cast doubt upon the claims of the bible. There was little "critical thinking" a few thousand years ago. It's like getting a four year old boy to believe in Santa Claus versus getting a thirty-four year old man to believe. 

Noah's Ark is a great example: when you've never traveled more than 100 miles in your life it's easy to believe every animal can fit on an ark - you can probably only think of a few dozen different animals that you have ever seen. Somebody who has grown up today knows there are several continents chock-full of them on the planet. That's really a hard sell right there!


----------



## oldfella1962

bullethead said:


> Now you have been around here long enough to know that I have never said, implied or even suggested that we came from monkeys.
> Without ever getting into the common ancestor or any pre-human species....there is a lot of physical evidence of humans that are much less evolved than the biblical version of Adam and Eve. Bottom line is that if Adam and Eve actually existed they may be examples of some of the first of their Ethnicity or Nationality but at the very least other humans have graced the planet much longer than those two.
> My best guess is that Adam and Eve are symbolic examples of a writers version of the start of the Jewish race.



yes there are some theories that Adam & Eve were the first of the Jews, god's chosen people. There were other humans around and that's why when Cain (or was in Abel?) killed his brother and was cast out there were other cities he could go to, but not be welcomed of course since he was marked as bad news.


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> What is the thoughts in regard to this as far as the assumption of mine, that if it were so, that man and woman had to be created, banged into existance,  at the same time, same local in order to recreate.... Basically, which came first, the chicken or the egg. In order to recreate, it required a man and a woman to be created. Or is there some other deep theory to this. I totally have never studied these things. LOL, hoping like crazy, you don't have an answer for this...


This is an easy one.........


I don't know.
I'm not 100% sold on any particular theory. I only know what direction the available facts and evidence goes in.
When the available facts and evidence points to a god and in particular the Christian God then I will be debating from your side of the fence


----------



## oldfella1962

NCHillbilly said:


> According to most scientific evidence, one man and one woman couldn't create a viable population-not enough genetic diversity to produce healthy generations of offspring with varied resistance to various environmental factors. Any time the population of an endangered species gets below a level of a hundred or so, it's very unlikely that they will ever come back, due to that very thing. This is especially true if you believe that Eve was a genetic clone of Adam, created from one of his ribs.



oh good point about Eve being a clone! Yep - if Adam & Eve are indeed physically the mother & father of all humans then they had to have the same structure as we do now: DNA, chromosomes, anatomy, etc.etc. If Eve was a clone and Adam & Eve mated (which they did of course) there would be zero genetic diversity until gene mutations eventually started kicking in - but would the human race have survived that long? It's an interesting question that NOBODY would have asked a few thousand years ago - maybe even a few hundred years ago. 

Hmmm.....it sure seems that the bible was written by people that wouldn't know more than anyone else knew back then. Just sayin'


----------



## oldfella1962

NCHillbilly said:


> Whole populations of organisms adapt and change over time, new species don't just pop into existence one organism at a time, new and different. You can see it happening today, still, commonly. That is exactly the point of genetic variation being the key-you need large numbers of individuals with different characteristics that might help them survive changed conditions, and pass on their genes.



yep - and the faster the "turnaround" the faster a species can adapt to changes. That's why scientists use microbes & insects and so forth to study mutations & changes. They reproduce (spawning a slightly changed version) at a much faster rate than humans. It takes us about 20 years for our offspring to have offspring of their own, and to find out what (if any) adaptations are developing. We would die before ever seeing too much change. But in one human lifetime thousands of life cycles have occurred among a group of more primitive organisms.


----------



## bullethead

oldfella1962 said:


> yes there are some theories that Adam & Eve were the first of the Jews, god's chosen people. There were other humans around and that's why when Cain (or was in Abel?) killed his brother and was cast out there were other cities he could go to, but not be welcomed of course since he was marked as bad news.



Yes along the lines of like they were the first of the chosen people(created for that task) but certainly not the first two people to inhabit the Earth.

I don't think many believers realize that these biblical stories were made over hundreds and thousands of years between each other and slowly put together as more of a tale of how their race, ethnicity, nation, creed and religion came to be. A history of our people type of thing that was told with a spin on why they are special.

Unfortunately, it's just like most every other tribe, clan, group did when recorded history started.


----------



## WaltL1

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying here: do you believe (some people do) that god made the universe (and our planet) appear older than they really are to test our faith? In other words to "take the bait" of believing in science versus accepting the creation story as it is written in the bible - than everything was created in 6 days and man was formed from clay, and named all the animals and so forth?
> 
> I've said this before - it would take less faith to believe that the bible was 100 percent accurate (hence god is real) centuries ago than it takes now. There was no vast, almost unlimited amount of scientific data to cast doubt upon the claims of the bible. There was little "critical thinking" a few thousand years ago. It's like getting a four year old boy to believe in Santa Claus versus getting a thirty-four year old man to believe.
> 
> Noah's Ark is a great example: when you've never traveled more than 100 miles in your life it's easy to believe every animal can fit on an ark - you can probably only think of a few dozen different animals that you have ever seen. Somebody who has grown up today knows there are several continents chock-full of them on the planet. That's really a hard sell right there!





> There was no vast, almost unlimited amount of scientific data to cast doubt upon the claims of the bible. There was little "critical thinking" a few thousand years ago. It's like getting a four year old boy to believe in Santa Claus versus getting a thirty-four year old man to believe.


We are seeing the modern day version of this as we speak -
Decline in Christianity in the technologically advanced countries like the US and an increase in much less advanced countries.
Tell a kid in the US that a donkey talked and the first thing they are going to do is a search on "can donkeys talk".
Now tell that to a kid who has to carry a bucket from his village down to the river to get water......... much better chance he is going to say "wow a miracle".


----------



## oldfella1962

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I assumed the "late" incorrectly. Sorry, but I thought this was the standard atheist belief. I'm interested, and somewhat inquiring of these thoughts of you guys, because I don't know. I would like to know more about the atheist ideas, yet it's likely, highly in depth, time consuming and mind overwhelming. Is there a short version so that I can be up to date? I'm embarrassed, because No good apologist knows not what the other side believes. That's why you guys do so well debating "the book"



there is no "standard" atheist belief just like there is no "standard" variety of Christianity/Judaism. Billions of years can be thought of as billions of dollars - easier than imagining trillions, right? Space is incredibly vast - it makes sense that things would happen at what seems like a snail's pace to us humans on this average sized crowded planet. It's just a matter of perspective. Humans evolved over thousands/millions of years (a drop in the bucket really) dealing and surviving only with what we could see and feel and hear from horizon to horizon from day to day over a very short & brutal life.
The concept of a much bigger, older place (the rest of the universe) has only been revealed very recently in human evolution. It's hard to get past the way we are hard-wired to think in a short amount of time - evolution/adaptation follows it's own schedule.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying here: do you believe (some people do) that god made the universe (and our planet) appear older than they really are to test our faith? In other words to "take the bait" of believing in science versus accepting the creation story as it is written in the bible - than everything was created in 6 days and man was formed from clay, and named all the animals and so forth?
> 
> I've said this before - it would take less faith to believe that the bible was 100 percent accurate (hence god is real) centuries ago than it takes now. There was no vast, almost unlimited amount of scientific data to cast doubt upon the claims of the bible. There was little "critical thinking" a few thousand years ago. It's like getting a four year old boy to believe in Santa Claus versus getting a thirty-four year old man to believe.
> 
> Noah's Ark is a great example: when you've never traveled more than 100 miles in your life it's easy to believe every animal can fit on an ark - you can probably only think of a few dozen different animals that you have ever seen. Somebody who has grown up today knows there are several continents chock-full of them on the planet. That's really a hard sell right there!


I don't mean with age on it in the sense that it was not new. But Adam was not created an infant like the earth was not created with seedlings needing to grow to maturity, or lots of little trees, but with full size trees, rivers with bends that point to age, etc


----------



## Geezer Ray

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, Geezer Ray is probably enjoying a break since I steeped into the fire. Hey, but I do enjoy this forum. Great bunch of guys whom make us think



I got yer back, went to the gun range. All this talk about these things make me think Armageddon is close by


----------



## Geezer Ray

Artfuldodger said:


> Good thing your nephew isn't a also a drunkard or a person who has trouble forgiving others. I have a nephew that has lust in his heart.
> I thought the "once and for all" worked for him as well but I guess it doesn't.
> 
> Maybe the pickin' and choosin' is between that person and God. A personal relationship if you will. That only God knows our hearts. Maybe the Great Commandments changed it all. That it went from strict rules to loving Gad and your neighbor. Perhaps that is what Jesus came to teach. Forgiveness.
> 
> Matthew 6:14-15 - For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
> 
> Is this doing the will of God? Following the Great Commandment instead of the old commandments?




Think about it, if you love your neighbor as you love yourself. And if you love God with all your heart, mind, and soul do you think we would need any commandments? No, we would be fulfilling the will of God, but because man is sinful by nature, well Houston we have a problem.


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> Whether you realize it or not, it sounds as crazy as our talking donkey


My guess is that what you think is crazy is that a "person" could be the end result.
Not that the process of certain things getting mixed together creates something else is crazy.
Is my guess crazy?


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> I suppose that my mind can not fandom a billion years ago. Thus would require of me that I have faith in these test. Sorry, not a logical answer



You lost me here. Can you elaborate? You have to have faith that a billion years could occur? Or that some set of events could take place over that course of time? Not tracking what you're saying.


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> What is the thoughts in regard to this as far as the assumption of mine, that if it were so, that man and woman had to be created, banged into existance,  at the same time, same local in order to recreate.... Basically, which came first, the chicken or the egg. In order to recreate, it required a man and a woman to be created. Or is there some other deep theory to this. I totally have never studied these things. LOL, hoping like crazy, you don't have an answer for this...



Doesn't this assume that sexual reproduction couldn't have evolved from life that reproduced asexually? Once you have species that reproduce sexually why would a man and woman have to be banged into existence?


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Think about it, if you love your neighbor as you love yourself. And if you love God with all your heart, mind, and soul do you think we would need any commandments? No, we would be fulfilling the will of God, but because man is sinful by nature, well Houston we have a problem.





> And if you love God with all your heart, mind, and soul do you think we would need any commandments?


I'm not so sure Geezer.....
Seems like if that were true the Bible would say -
Love me.
The End.


----------



## atlashunter

oldfella1962 said:


> oh good point about Eve being a clone! Yep - if Adam & Eve are indeed physically the mother & father of all humans then they had to have the same structure as we do now: DNA, chromosomes, anatomy, etc.etc. If Eve was a clone and Adam & Eve mated (which they did of course) there would be zero genetic diversity until gene mutations eventually started kicking in - but would the human race have survived that long? It's an interesting question that NOBODY would have asked a few thousand years ago - maybe even a few hundred years ago.
> 
> Hmmm.....it sure seems that the bible was written by people that wouldn't know more than anyone else knew back then. Just sayin'




Another example of that is biblical accounts of ascension.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus



> The world of the Ascension is a three-part universe with the heavens above, a flat earth centered on Jerusalem in the middle, and the underworld below.[9][10][11] Heaven was separated from the earth by the firmament, the visible sky, a solid inverted bowl where God's throne sat "on the vaulted roof of earth."(Isaiah 40:22).[12][13] Humans looking up from earth saw the floor of heaven, made of clear blue lapis-lazuli (Exodus 24:9-10), as was God's throne (Ezekiel 1:26).[14]
> 
> Stories of heavenly ascents were fairly common in the time of Jesus,[3] signifying the means whereby a prophet could attain access to divine secrets, or divine approval granted to an exceptionally righteous individual, or the deification of an exceptional man.[4] Figures familiar to Jews would have included Enoch (from the Book of Genesis and a popular non-Biblical work called 1 Enoch); the 5th century sage Ezra; Baruch the companion of the prophet Jeremiah (from a work called 2 Baruch, in which Baruch is promised he will ascend to heaven after 40 days); Levi the ancestor of priests; the Teacher of Righteousness from the Qumran community; the prophet Elijah (from 2 Kings); Moses, who was deified on entering heaven; and the children of Job, who according to the Testament of Job ascended heaven following their resurrection from the dead.[15][16] Non-Jewish readers would have been familiar with the case of the emperor Augustus, whose ascent was witnessed by Senators; Romulus the founder of Rome, who, like Jesus, was taken to heaven in a cloud; the Greek hero Heracles (Hercules); and others.[17]



We now know what is up there beyond the clouds. Where exactly were these guys going? Was it all for show? Or are these accounts based on a flawed ancient understanding of our world?


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Another example of that is biblical accounts of ascension.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> We now know what is up there beyond the clouds. Where exactly were these guys going? Was it all for show? Or are these accounts based on a flawed ancient understanding of our world?



I'd bet my favorite $2 Bill on the last choice.


----------



## Geezer Ray

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not so sure Geezer.....
> Seems like if that were true the Bible would say -
> Love me.
> The End.



It kinda does.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> You lost me here. Can you elaborate? You have to have faith that a billion years could occur? Or that some set of events could take place over that course of time? Not tracking what you're saying.


What I mean is that I would not trust that we have a test that determines  a billion years.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

WaltL1 said:


> My guess is that what you think is crazy is that a "person" could be the end result.
> Not that the process of certain things getting mixed together creates something else is crazy.
> Is my guess crazy?


Yea, exactly, but more than that, that a male and a female was made by the mix, and in close enough proximity in time and location to regenerate.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> Doesn't this assume that sexual reproduction couldn't have evolved from life that reproduced asexually? Once you have species that reproduce sexually why would a man and woman have to be banged into existence?


I am not comprehending? My use of banged is referring to the big bang, the mixing of whatever that formed the recipe for man..... and a woman. LOL, I got to google asexually


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> What I mean is that I would not trust that we have a test that determines  a billion years.



You don't think there is a way to test if something is that old?


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> I am not comprehending? My use of banged is referring to the big bang, the mixing of whatever that formed the recipe for man..... and a woman. LOL, I got to google asexually



And your question was how could that be since they would have to be formed at the same time right?


----------



## NCHillbilly

1gr8bldr said:


> I am not comprehending? My use of banged is referring to the big bang, the mixing of whatever that formed the recipe for man..... and a woman. LOL, I got to google asexually



Humans came along millions of years after other life was already on earth. They didn't "bang" into existence. A population of proto-humans gradually evolved into humans over a very long period of time. Male and female roles were already long established long before humans showed up. Even today, there are quite a few species that can change from male to female depending on age and environmental factors.

The "Big Bang Theory," which may, or may not be accurate, doesn't involve species suddenly popping into existence all at once.


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> It kinda does.


And if that were true you guys would have a lot less to disagree on


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> Yea, exactly, but more than that, that a male and a female was made by the mix, and in close enough proximity in time and location to regenerate.


Check this out and I think Atlas mentioned this already -


> https://www.thoughtco.com/asexual-reproduction-373441


Maybe one of our ingredients contained this ability at one time but we evolved into completely separate genders? (think waaaaaay back before we were "people")
I don't know. But its a piece of evidence that relates directly to the male/female question you have above.


----------



## bullethead

Cell reproduction is the process by which cells divide to form new cells. Each time a cell divides, it makes a copy of all of its chromosomes,which are tightly coiled strands of DNA, the genetic material that holds the instructions for all life, and sends an identical copy to the new cell that is created. This is a process called Mitosis.


----------



## bullethead

https://biology-online.org/10/1_first_life.htm


----------



## bullethead

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth


----------



## bullethead

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life.html


----------



## Geezer Ray

WaltL1 said:


> And if that were true you guys would have a lot less to disagree on



Yes sir and that's why I do my best to keep it simple, to not get hung up on the small things, to know God is incharge, and I do one day at a time. Everything will be revealed in the end.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

atlashunter said:


> You don't think there is a way to test if something is that old?


No way to verify the test


----------



## atlashunter

1gr8bldr said:


> No way to verify the test



Then it wouldn’t be science. Think you’re mistaken about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy


----------



## red neck richie

Geezer Ray said:


> Yes sir and that's why I do my best to keep it simple, to not get hung up on the small things, to know God is incharge, and I do one day at a time. Everything will be revealed in the end.



I admire your philosophy Geezer. I try and do the same.


----------



## ky55

red neck richie said:


> I admire your philosophy Geezer. I try and do the same.



I guess that’s all some folks need. 

It reminds me of sticking your fingers in both ears, closing your eyes, and humming your favorite tune as loud as you can.


----------



## oldfella1962

Originally Posted by WaltL1  View Post
I'm not so sure Geezer.....
Seems like if that were true the Bible would say -
Love me.
The End.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this: the bible should say -
Fear me.
The end. 

I can't equate love with eternal torture. Fear would be a more appropriate emotion.


----------



## oldfella1962

wow I had no idea "ascension" was so common! But riddle me this: the "firmament" was where all the water was held which caused the great flood in the Noah's Ark story. So once this firmament broke and all the water came was the firmament rebuilt? If people still believed in the firmament long, long after the flood then it must have still been around. 
Where did it go then? We have made many trips outside our atmosphere and we haven't seen this firmament where heavenly thrones sit.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Interesting study or concept concerning sexuality, gender, asexual, evolution, and religion. 
I remember listening to a discussion on what makes one male or female beyond reproductive organs. Bringing evolution and asexual into the mix opens up possibilities that I can't explain.

If we keep it religion, why would God specify male and female even if nature didn't? The defines of male and female are a big part of Christianity and I would assume other religions as well.

Strange how the worlds religions overlap in regards to a lot of things like sexuality. Implications for gender identity. Made in the image of God. Male and female created he. Yet one of the 1/3 of the Godhead personalities is male. Well maybe two of them are. Father and Son. Adam was made first. A male and not a female. Interesting.

Continue with all the sons born to Noah, Abraham, David, and Mary. There is this Sonship importance throughout but also the importance of Mary.
Sexuality and genealogy was of utmost importance to God. 
Well at least to the New Testament. 

Hard to believe God abandoned this approach with the revelation given to Paul. Maybe it's still a part of his plan.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> If you are under grace(born again), you are no longer under the old law.
> BUT, if you are under grace, you have a law written in your heart. It's no longer required to follow the law written on stone tablets, because Jesus fulfilled that for us. There's a better law written on tablets of our flesh, in our heart. Beautiful isn't it? And so liberating also. Aaaah grace!



The Law written on our hearts, Jesus died for those as well? I mean no matter where they are written, grace is liberating?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> The Law written on our hearts, Jesus died for those as well? I mean no matter where they are written, grace is liberating?



Yes, James describes it as the "perfect law of liberty".

John 8:36 
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

We have liberty to walk in newness of life.


----------



## Israel

God loves man. So how could he conclude what man _does_ is so very worthy of death?

Sin is/was _allowed_ in one place that man might learn an immutable and unapproachable righteousness reigns in Another. This is of necessity. There is nothing/no thing subtle in righteousness.

What is created of _mutable truth _(there's another word for that) is also of necessity _of example._ Even toward and for what is created of that _immutable_. (Rom 9:21-23, Acts 17:30)

But Jesus Christ is _not allowed._ He is given. He is _the_ given One. Even _into_ the hands of _evil men_. By purpose of the One who works all things in accord with the counsel of _His will._

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Understand why the Lord marveled at the Centurion's faith! Understand why the Lord marveled at what the Centurion's faith was showing the Centurion! How deeply he was given to see, even past the children of Israel!
What is under command does not declare its own freedom of will, but the will of the One under whose command it appears.

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: _if another shall come in his own name_, him _ye will _receive.

Why? Because his name...is "like" your own. There's an _affinity_ to name. It _must_ be broken, and only is...in and through Jesus Christ. That another Name be revealed.

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore _that has heard, and has learned of the Father,_ comes unto me.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And _not paradoxically_

No man can come to me, except the Father who has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


Jesus does something. He does what he says he does...and would do.


_but I will show to you_, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the gehenna; yes, I say to you, _Fear ye Him_. (Young's Literal, for necessary reason)

Does Jesus do this? Has Jesus done this? Does Jesus "show" the One a man may have heard from, learned from...of immutable righteousness? Of immutable right-ness=Truth?

Who will lay down their life to take it up again...but _only_ by command? What will accomplishes this?

No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. _I have power_ to lay it down, and _I have power_ to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

The prophet that has a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that has my word, let him speak my word faithfully. _What is the chaff to the wheat? _says the LORD.

And when I saw him, I did fall at his feet as dead, and he placed his right hand upon me, saying to me, 'Be not afraid; I am the First and the Last, and he who is living, and _I did become dead_, and, lo, I am living to the ages of the ages. Amen! and I have the keys of the hades and of the death.

What will rise...will only rise at His word. All righteous fear, all fear_ of necessity_ is only stilled by His word.

And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.


----------



## WaltL1

ky55 said:


> I guess that’s all some folks need.
> 
> It reminds me of sticking your fingers in both ears, closing your eyes, and humming your favorite tune as loud as you can.


Israel said this in response to a different situation in the Happy Easter thread but I think it may apply here also -


> Upsetting our own apple carts, though, is far different. Who dare risk throwing water on the hearth that so warms us? Our retreat?


----------



## Geezer Ray

welderguy said:


> yes, james describes it as the "perfect law of liberty".
> 
> John 8:36
> 36 if the son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
> 
> We have liberty to walk in newness of life.



amen


----------



## Geezer Ray

ky55 said:


> I guess that’s all some folks need.
> 
> It reminds me of sticking your fingers in both ears, closing your eyes, and humming your favorite tune as loud as you can.



Actually it is nothing like sticking your fingers in both ears. It's having the common sense that God gave even the lowest of animals to know that worrying about tomorrow is a waste of time. You will change 100 percent of nothing by worrying. God has a plan and it is working. You know, come to think of it I believe that's what is going on here. God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists. After all how can there be a Creator if He can't create according to man's science. That's not logical. Because He can't.


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> Actually it is nothing like sticking your fingers in both ears. It's having the common sense that God gave even the lowest of animals to know that worrying about tomorrow is a waste of time. You will change 100 percent of nothing by worrying. God has a plan and it is working. You know, come to think of it I believe that's what is going on here. God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists. After all how can there be a Creator if He can't create according to man's science. That's not logical. Because He can't.



What in your opinion is the benefit of god's plan for people who are victims of abuse , sexual assault, torture, cancer and other less cheerful examples that believers always seem to avoid when they talk about god's plans? How is that "working"?


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> Actually it is nothing like sticking your fingers in both ears. It's having the common sense that God gave even the lowest of animals to know that worrying about tomorrow is a waste of time. You will change 100 percent of nothing by worrying. God has a plan and it is working. You know, come to think of it I believe that's what is going on here. God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists. After all how can there be a Creator if He can't create according to man's science. That's not logical. Because He can't.





> You know, come to think of it I believe that's what is going on here. God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists.


You were doing so good don't go off the rails now


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> What in your opinion is the benefit of god's plan for people who are victims of abuse , sexual assault, torture, cancer and other less cheerful examples that believers always seem to avoid when they talk about god's plans? How is that "working"?




God plans his work, and works his plan. 


http://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/mortality_under_five_text/en/

“Under-five mortality

Situation

5.6 million children under age five died in 2016, 15 000 every day.

The risk of a child dying before completing five years of age is still highest in the WHO African Region (76.5 per 1000 live births), almost 8 times higher than that in the WHO European Region (9.6 per 1000 live births).”


*


----------



## hummerpoo

Geezer Ray said:


> Actually it is nothing like sticking your fingers in both ears. It's having the common sense that God gave even the lowest of animals to know that worrying about tomorrow is a waste of time. You will change 100 percent of nothing by worrying. God has a plan and it is working. You know, come to think of it I believe that's what is going on here.  God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists. After all how can there be a Creator if He can't create according to man's science. That's not logical. Because He can't.



Bingo!

And those who can except that they are not the top of the heap, are in some way deficient.


----------



## WaltL1

> Posted by Geezer Ray
> You know, come to think of it I believe that's what is going on here. God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists.





hummerpoo said:


> Bingo!


Come on guys give this a little thought.
If figuring out God's plan determines whether you believe he exists or not how would you explain the bazillion times we've heard "I don't why insert terrible thing here happened, it must be God's plan"?
Apparently understanding God's plan doesn't actually have squat to do with whether you believe he exists or not.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I just personally don't believe that if God exists, he has any interest or plan in our individual everyday lives. It's like God is sitting up there simultaneously watching 7.3 billion people with great interest 24/7, seriously evaluating what each one does and doesn't do every minute, and making little checks and x's in his book. Really? 
I think if God exists, he/she/it started the whole thing rolling and went on about it's business. If you plant 200 acres of corn, do you go out there five times a day and evaluate each stalk individually, or are you more concerned with the overall production of the field after a long period of time?


----------



## Israel

Yes...but we have seen a mystery. I still look for its resolution, having glimpsed it.

It (He) is the "way" of God.

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

What cost to us to appear as fools? Even among the wisest of this age?

God alone knows who if any I carry in my heart, and if there be any true making of room, there. 
I don't speak in reproval, but only by reminder. But when _I am_ reproved...I am reminded.

I hope to sit (and may it be my sincerest hope of all, despite all temporal working contrary to it) around a table soon, and very soon, where, with all my brothers we might be led in joyous and even raucous laughter, by the Brother we once threw in the pit, but is appointed to our salvation.
He is not sorry for what was endured in Himself...to make room for us, to make room...for me.
I am pressed to explore and find who is also here.



Only He knows all the guests, and better still, all those He tells, "make yourself at home".

And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?


----------



## Israel

NCHillbilly said:


> I just personally don't believe that if God exists, he has any interest or plan in our individual everyday lives. It's like God is sitting up there simultaneously watching 7.3 billion people with great interest 24/7, seriously evaluating what each one does and doesn't do every minute, and making little checks and x's in his book. Really?
> I think if God exists, he/she/it started the whole thing rolling and went on about it's business. If you plant 200 acres of corn, do you go out there five times a day and evaluate each stalk individually, or are you more concerned with the overall production of the field after a long period of time?



What is _allowed_ to disagree with Jesus Christ may yet seem to.

Look at the birds of the air: They do not sow or reap or gather into barns--and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

I am persuaded _you are._


----------



## WaltL1

NCHillbilly said:


> I just personally don't believe that if God exists, he has any interest or plan in our individual everyday lives. It's like God is sitting up there simultaneously watching 7.3 billion people with great interest 24/7, seriously evaluating what each one does and doesn't do every minute, and making little checks and x's in his book. Really?
> I think if God exists, he/she/it started the whole thing rolling and went on about it's business. If you plant 200 acres of corn, do you go out there five times a day and evaluate each stalk individually, or are you more concerned with the overall production of the field after a long period of time?


So basically we are like that new toy a kid gets at Christmas? Plays with it non-stop for about 2 days then throws it in the closet and forgets about it? 
Come to think of it, according to the Bible, God/Jesus used to hang out with us on a daily basis but seems to have gotten some new peeps


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Come on guys give this a little thought.
> If figuring out God's plan determines whether you believe he exists or not how would you explain the bazillion times we've heard "I don't why insert terrible thing here happened, it must be God's plan"?
> Apparently understanding God's plan doesn't actually have squat to do with whether you believe he exists or not.



Give it a little thought, and some rereading.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Give it a little thought, and some rereading.


The assertion was pretty simple. I understood it clearly.


----------



## ky55

NCHillbilly said:


> I just personally don't believe that if God exists, he has any interest or plan in our individual everyday lives. It's like God is sitting up there simultaneously watching 7.3 billion people with great interest 24/7, seriously evaluating what each one does and doesn't do every minute, and making little checks and x's in his book. Really?
> I think if God exists, he/she/it started the whole thing rolling and went on about it's business. If you plant 200 acres of corn, do you go out there five times a day and evaluate each stalk individually, or are you more concerned with the overall production of the field after a long period of time?



If you take away the “personal relationship with God”,
you’ve stolen the creamy filling from the middle of the Double-Stuff Oreo. 


*


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> The assertion was pretty simple. I understood it clearly.



Sorry, I don't see it.  Thanks for putting up my apparent clumsiness.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry, I don't see it.  Thanks for putting up my apparent clumsiness.


Heres how I understand this -


> Posted by Geezer Ray
> You know, come to think of it I believe that's what is going on here. God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists.


We don't believe God exists.
Why?


> God has a plan and you can't figure it out





> so therefore God can't exists.


We will skip over the part that it implies we think we are so smart that "if we cant figure it out" IT must be wrong and go straight to the meat and taters -
The flip side to " you don't believe because you cant figure it out" is "you would believe if you could figure it out".
I pointed out the fault in that premise -
Christians, who do believe, often don't understand God's plan either.
So understanding God's plan is not the reason one believes or not believes.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Heres how I understand this -
> 
> We don't believe God exists.
> Why?
> 
> 
> We will skip over the part that it implies we think we are so smart that "if we cant figure it out" IT must be wrong and go straight to the meat and taters -
> The flip side to " you don't believe because you cant figure it out" is "you would believe if you could figure it out".
> I pointed out the fault in that premise -
> Christians, who do believe, often don't understand God's plan either.
> So understanding God's plan is not the reason one believes or not believes.



So you assumed, then argued with a "premise" that was not stated, and I can not see that it was implied (we will have to ask Geezer about his intent).  For myself, I believe and I do not understand, which, in this case, negated you conclusion.

>>>edit<<< So I blew off the rest of my day and reread myself (big mistake I'm sure).  The part now highlighted needs to have the quotes removed, or clearly identified as yours, no something said by another.  That idea is not in any previous statement.  The subject address in "understanding" as it effects "exists", not "believe"; big difference.

BTW ... Your last 2 lines are correct as I see it.  They just don't address the issue.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> So you assumed, then argued with a "premise" that was not stated, and I can not see that it was implied (we will have to ask Geezer about his intent).  For myself, I believe and I do not understand, which, in this case, negated you conclusion.


Geezer's intent is insignificant that's why we skipped over it and went to what is significant (the meat and taters).


> For myself, I believe and I do not understand,


And that was exactly my point.
The "understanding God's plan" is NOT why you believe.
There are other reasons you believe.
So why is "not understanding" the reason that we do not  believe?
There cant be any other reasons?


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Geezer's intent is insignificant that's why we skipped over it and went to what is significant (the meat and taters).
> 
> And that was exactly my point.
> The "understanding God's plan" is NOT why you believe.
> There are other reasons you believe.
> So why is "not understanding" the reason that we do not  believe?
> There cant be any other reasons?



#584
I give up.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> So you assumed, then argued with a "premise" that was not stated, and I can not see that it was implied (we will have to ask Geezer about his intent).  For myself, I believe and I do not understand, which, in this case, negated you conclusion.
> 
> >>>edit<<< So I blew off the rest of my day and reread myself (big mistake I'm sure).  The part now highlighted needs to have the quotes removed, or clearly identified as yours, no something said by another.  That idea is not in any previous statement.  The subject address in "understanding" as it effects "exists", not "believe"; big difference.
> 
> BTW ... Your last 2 lines are correct as I see it.  They just don't address the issue.





> Posted by Geezer Ray
> God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists.


I said -


> " you don't believe because you cant figure it out"


That applies to believing he exists as stated in Geezer's post.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> #584
> I give up.


Add "he exists" after believe.
We straight now?


----------



## Geezer Ray

Geezer Ray said:


> Actually it is nothing like sticking your fingers in both ears. It's having the common sense that God gave even the lowest of animals to know that worrying about tomorrow is a waste of time. You will change 100 percent of nothing by worrying. God has a plan and it is working. You know, come to think of it I believe that's what is going on here. God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists. After all how can there be a Creator if He can't create according to man's science. That's not logical. Because He can't.




God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists. After all how can there be a Creator if He can't create according to man's science. That's not logical. Because He can't.

Ok, now I told you I am not the best at saying what I mean. Let me try to clear up my muddy thoughts. I believe God has a plan and He is definitely working it in His time. No I do not understand His plan but I don't have to. I am to be obedient to the plan of my Creator and what He has planned for me will be revealed to me in God's time. I believe God knows exactly what is and is going to happen with me every second of every day. He is God and not limited by man. Do I understand why bad thing s happen to good people, no. I d know that when they do happen He is there to comfort me. It may take bad things to draw us back to where we should be in our relationship with Him. I don't know. But I still believe.

I know that I have seen illusions that I can't figure out so I don't believe in them. I was trying to say or ask which ever you prefer is it if you don't believe because you can't understand what God is doing? Can you use science to prove everything? For the record I believe in science also. I am in no way a science major. Do you believe in love, can it be proved? Can you prove your theory of how things in this world have come about? All the items that you say mixed and haphazardly just came together to create the complex things such as a new born baby, where did they come from? Do they exist inside of our bodies so they can mix again to form a baby?

I was in no way trying to question your intelligence, that would be foolish because it is obvious that you are well studied and commited to what you believe.

Sorry if I upset the apple cart.


----------



## ky55

Geezer Ray said:


> God has a plan and it is working.





Geezer Ray said:


> God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists.





Geezer Ray said:


> I believe God has a plan and He is definitely working it in His time.





Geezer Ray said:


> No I do not understand His plan but I don't have to.





Geezer Ray said:


> I am to be obedient to the plan of my Creator and what He has planned for me will be revealed to me in God's time.





Geezer Ray said:


> Everything will be revealed in the end.





Geezer Ray said:


> I don't know. But I still believe.






Geezer, I'm beginning to wonder if you know any more about a "plan" than us unbelievers??




*


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> God has a plan and you can't figure it out so therefore God can't exists. After all how can there be a Creator if He can't create according to man's science. That's not logical. Because He can't.
> 
> Ok, now I told you I am not the best at saying what I mean. Let me try to clear up my muddy thoughts. I believe God has a plan and He is definitely working it in His time. No I do not understand His plan but I don't have to. I am to be obedient to the plan of my Creator and what He has planned for me will be revealed to me in God's time. I believe God knows exactly what is and is going to happen with me every second of every day. He is God and not limited by man. Do I understand why bad thing s happen to good people, no. I d know that when they do happen He is there to comfort me. It may take bad things to draw us back to where we should be in our relationship with Him. I don't know. But I still believe.
> 
> I know that I have seen illusions that I can't figure out so I don't believe in them. I was trying to say or ask which ever you prefer is it if you don't believe because you can't understand what God is doing? Can you use science to prove everything? For the record I believe in science also. I am in no way a science major. Do you believe in love, can it be proved? Can you prove your theory of how things in this world have come about? All the items that you say mixed and haphazardly just came together to create the complex things such as a new born baby, where did they come from? Do they exist inside of our bodies so they can mix again to form a baby?
> 
> I was in no way trying to question your intelligence, that would be foolish because it is obvious that you are well studied and commited to what you believe.
> 
> Sorry if I upset the apple cart.


No worries. I think its more of a miscommunication between me and hummerpoo.
As for your questions above -


> is it if you don't believe because you can't understand what God is doing?


No.
I don't believe a god exists (any of them) because the evidence doesn't bear out that one exists.


> Can you use science to prove everything?


No.


> Do you believe in love, can it be proved?


Yes I believe in love. 
Yes I believe it can be proven over time based on actions.


> Can you prove your theory of how things in this world have come about?


No. 
I can only go with the available facts and evidence.


> All the items that you say mixed and haphazardly just came together to create the complex things such as a new born baby, where did they come from?


The available facts and evidence point to they came from being created (small c).


> Do they exist inside of our bodies so they can mix again to form a baby?


Not that we know of.


> it is obvious that you are well studied


I assure you that I'm not well studied. Not believing a god exists because one cant be proven to exist is pretty simple  


> committed to what you believe.


I'm not committed (although maybe I should be).
You could change my mind in a second with legitimate facts and evidence.


----------



## Geezer Ray

ky55 said:


> Geezer, I'm beginning to wonder if you know any more about a "plan" than us unbelievers??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



I have never said I know the plan, I do not. I do know God has a plan and it is unfolding as we live. I do not understand all the ways of God, but I don't have to. I am suppose to live by faith. That said I guess the Atheist and I have something in common. Neither one of us can absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt prove God is or that God is not. The main difference is Faith.


----------



## Geezer Ray

WaltL1 said:


> No worries. I think its more of a miscommunication between me and hummerpoo.
> As for your questions above -
> 
> No.
> I don't believe a god exists (any of them) because the evidence doesn't bear out that one exists.
> 
> No.
> 
> Yes I believe in love.
> Yes I believe it can be proven over time based on actions.
> 
> No.
> I can only go with the available facts and evidence.
> 
> The available facts and evidence point to they came from being created (small c).
> 
> Not that we know of.
> 
> I assure you that I'm not well studied. Not believing a god exists because one cant be proven to exist is pretty simple
> 
> I'm not committed (although maybe I should be).
> You could change my mind in a second with legitimate facts and evidence.



What is the test to prove love?
What facts and evidence do you have to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything created the way you say it happened really happened the way you say?

What evidence do you have that proves God doesn't exist?


----------



## ky55

Geezer Ray said:


> I have never said I know the plan, I do not. I do know God has a plan and it is unfolding as we live.



How do you assert that a plan is "unfolding", when you admit no knowledge of the plan?
 




Geezer Ray said:


> That said I guess the Atheist and I have something in common. Neither one of us can absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt prove God is or that God is not.



I think you've overlooked a major difference.

*


----------



## WaltL1

Geezer Ray said:


> What is the test to prove love?
> What facts and evidence do you have to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything created the way you say it happened really happened the way you say?
> 
> What evidence do you have that proves God doesn't exist?





> What is the test to prove love?


When someone sticks by you through thick and thin over a long period of time ?
Of course what they might love could be the security you provide or they could love your money or they could love you or they could love......


> What facts and evidence do you have to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything created the way you say it happened really happened the way you say?


I haven't said that I believe in anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don't believe in the Big Bang theory _beyond a shadow of a doubt_. I don't believe there are no g(G)ods _beyond a shadow of a doubt
_.
Man doesnt know how we got here _beyond a shadow of a doubt_ so how could I?


> What evidence do you have that proves God doesn't exist?


My evidence is that no one has been able to prove that a god (any of them) exists.
I don't believe a 7 headed purple and pink striped hippo that can fly and do algebra exists either but I cant prove that one doesn't.


----------



## Geezer Ray

ky55 said:


> How do you assert that a plan is "unfolding", when you admit no knowledge of the plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've overlooked a major difference.
> 
> *



I believe God has a plan and is working it. I do not know what the plan is in details, just that He is in control.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> That said I guess the Atheist and I have something in common. Neither one of us can absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt prove God is or that God is not. The main difference is Faith.



That is true but the probability is not equal that one side or the other is right.


----------



## Geezer Ray

atlashunter said:


> That is true but the probability is not equal that one side or the other is right.



Not sure I can agree with that, but ok.


----------



## ky55

atlashunter said:


> That is true but the probability is not equal that one side or the other is right.






Geezer Ray said:


> Not sure I can agree with that, but ok.



Why not?
You've already admitted that you can't prove the "God is" side "absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt".  
No proof is required for the "God is not" side.




Geezer Ray said:


> Neither one of us can absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt prove God is or that God is not. The main difference is Faith.



The appeal to "Faith" doesn't even add any credibility, let alone any proof.


----------



## Geezer Ray

ky55 said:


> Why not?
> You've already admitted that you can't prove the "God is" side "absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt".
> No proof is required for the "God is not" side.





This type of attitude is what kills debates. You sir can not prove He doesn't exist so why does that by default mean God is not?


----------



## ky55

Geezer Ray said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> This type of attitude is what kills debates. You sir can not prove He doesn't exist so why does that by default mean God is not?



Walt explained it very well a few posts back:



WaltL1 said:


> My evidence is that no one has been able to prove that a god (any of them) exists.
> I don't believe a 7 headed purple and pink striped hippo that can fly and do algebra exists either but I cant prove that one doesn't.




No attitude involved.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> Not sure I can agree with that, but ok.



Even if we assumed there is a god without any evidence for it the fact that there are thousands of gods claimed means that the odds you just happened to pick the right one is very slim. Odds are against you right out of the gate without even considering the lack of evidence. But it's even worse for christians because their book makes testable claims about their god that have been put to the test and falsified. That doesn't prove no god but its consistent with the christian god not existing. We have the evidence we would expect to have if the bible weren't true. Christians on the other hand don't have the evidence one would expect to have if the claims of their book were true.

Plus we know something from archaeology about the origins of the biblical god and it turns out this god didn't pop into existence from nothing. Jewish monotheism has its roots in earlier Canaanite polytheism. So one would have to believe that there was a real god that was at one time part of a pantheon of semitic gods and they are all mythological except for him. Not impossible but not likely either.

I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that leprechauns, elves, and fairies don't exist anywhere in the universe. But I have the lack of evidence I should expect to have if they didn't. Same with the gods.


----------



## atlashunter

ky55 said:


> The appeal to "Faith" doesn't even add any credibility, let alone any proof.



Faith exposes the weakness of a claim. It just boils down to wish thinking.


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> This type of attitude is what kills debates. You sir can not prove He doesn't exist so why does that by default mean God is not?



Geezer Ray, do you use the "you can't prove something doesn't exist so therefore it exists" in any other aspect of your life?

For example, if someone told you that they saw a wild turkey that had deer type antlers, a cats tail and had furry 5 toed feet would you immediately believe the person?
Or
Would you ask for proof because you know better?


When someone tells me that they know a god that they have never met. And they listen to a god that they never heard. And they speak for a god that has never told them to. And that they understand a god that is so complex and beyond human capacity.

I know better.
But in each and every case I give them the benefit of doubt and ask them for proof. In each and every case nobody has given a shred of tangible proof.
When the proof is "you can't prove he doesn't exist"....well....then your god is absolutely no different than every other god and every other absurd concoction that anyone has ever made up in their mind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof lies with the one making a claim for the positive. 
The burden of proof is not on the shoulders of someone claiming the negative.

A negative cannot be proven. You cannot prove something does not exist and the reason is because it does not exist. 


If a god actually does exist then all you have to do to prove me and everyone else wrong is to provide undeniable evidence. Why is that so hard to do with something that is supposed to be everywhere at all times?


----------



## Geezer Ray

bullethead said:


> Geezer Ray, do you use the "you can't prove something doesn't exist so therefore it exists" in any other aspect of your life?
> 
> For example, if someone told you that they saw a wild turkey that had deer type antlers, a cats tail and had furry 5 toed feet would you immediately believe the person?
> Or
> Would you ask for proof because you know better?
> 
> 
> When someone tells me that they know a god that they have never met. And they listen to a god that they never heard. And they speak for a god that has never told them to. And that they understand a god that is so complex and beyond human capacity.
> 
> I know better.
> But in each and every case I give them the benefit of doubt and ask them for proof. In each and every case nobody has given a shred of tangible proof.
> When the proof is "you can't prove he doesn't exist"....well....then your god is absolutely no different than every other god and every other absurd concoction that anyone has ever made up in their mind.
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> The burden of proof lies with the one making a claim for the positive.
> The burden of proof is not on the shoulders of someone claiming the negative.
> 
> A negative cannot be proven. You cannot prove something does not exist and the reason is because it does not exist.
> 
> 
> If a god actually does exist then all you have to do to prove me and everyone else wrong is to provide undeniable evidence. Why is that so hard to do with something that is supposed to be everywhere at all times?



It is so hard to do because a person that chooses not to believe is not going to listen. In the Bible these people are referred to as stiff necked or hard hearted.  Fortunately for Christians we do not have to prove or convince anyone. All we are tasked with by God is to go and tell or witness if you wish. We can't save or convert anyone. That is between the person and the Holy Spirit. The only thing that I am an expert on is what God has done in my life. I don't know why and I don't know how but I know He loves me enough that He saved me even though I did not deserve it.


----------



## Geezer Ray

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to exchange thoughts with y'all it has been very interesting and beneficial for me. You made me think and that's good. Peace to ya , maybe later on another subject but unfortunately for me this one needs a break. See ya and God Bless (sorry I just had to throw that in.) &#55357;&#56841;


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> It is so hard to do because a person that chooses not to believe is not going to listen. In the Bible these people are referred to as stiff necked or hard hearted.  Fortunately for Christians we do not have to prove or convince anyone. All we are tasked with by God is to go and tell or witness if you wish. We can't save or convert anyone. That is between the person and the Holy Spirit. The only thing that I am an expert on is what God has done in my life. I don't know why and I don't know how but I know He loves me enough that He saved me even though I did not deserve it.



Keep the same reply and just substitute a god of any other religion where you mention your god. You are not saying anything unique. What you said is applicable to every other god by a believer in every other religion.

And you still have not given me direct answers to direct questions that I have asked you in 3 attempts now.


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to exchange thoughts with y'all it has been very interesting and beneficial for me. You made me think and that's good. Peace to ya , maybe later on another subject but unfortunately for me this one needs a break. See ya and God Bless (sorry I just had to throw that in.) ��



I appreciate the time you have given in here. Thanks.


----------



## atlashunter

Geezer Ray said:


> It is so hard to do because a person that chooses not to believe is not going to listen. In the Bible these people are referred to as stiff necked or hard hearted.  Fortunately for Christians we do not have to prove or convince anyone. All we are tasked with by God is to go and tell or witness if you wish. We can't save or convert anyone. That is between the person and the Holy Spirit. The only thing that I am an expert on is what God has done in my life. I don't know why and I don't know how but I know He loves me enough that He saved me even though I did not deserve it.



Don’t think you answered his question. There is no more evidence of Yahweh than for Apollo or Ra. So why do you lower the bar for one god but not the rest?


----------



## bullethead

Geezer Ray said:


> It is so hard to do because a person that chooses not to believe is not going to listen. In the Bible these people are referred to as stiff necked or hard hearted.  Fortunately for Christians we do not have to prove or convince anyone. All we are tasked with by God is to go and tell or witness if you wish. We can't save or convert anyone. That is between the person and the Holy Spirit. The only thing that I am an expert on is what God has done in my life. I don't know why and I don't know how but I know He loves me enough that He saved me even though I did not deserve it.



Do you think it would be a hard task for your god to reach me? Do you think that a god with the capabilities that you say your god has would be able to contact me in a way that I would absolutely understand?

Would you please ask your god to do that?
I am open and willing to be contacted.
I was once a very dedicated believer. The more I listened the less I heard. My mind is still open. Will your god contact me?


----------



## ky55

Geezer Ray said:


> Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to exchange thoughts with y'all it has been very interesting and beneficial for me. You made me think and that's good. Peace to ya , maybe later on another subject but unfortunately for me this one needs a break. See ya and God Bless (sorry I just had to throw that in.) ��



Sorry about your apple cart. 

*


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> If the christian answer is just then why would it be rough? Look if the child of a mass murderer asked about their parent being sentenced to death it wouldn't be hard for most people to say yes that is his punishment because he did X, Y, and Z that warrants such a punishment. Why didn't the pope give a comparable answer? I think if he did it would be readily apparent how morally bankrupt the core of christian doctrine actually is. I think his answer proves that he is well aware of that.


The Pope or no one else is in a position to decide who went where. It would be foolish to tell anyone where someone went. None of us, not even the Pope knows what happened between that man and his beliefs in his final moments. 

The core of Christianity is not bankrupt, the foolishness of those that can’t comprehend how it works, yet pretend to know all there is about it is is a different story, though.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Spotlite said:


> The Pope or no one else is in a position to decide who went where. It would be foolish to tell anyone where someone went. None of us, not even the Pope knows what happened between that man and his beliefs in his final moments.
> 
> The core of Christianity is not bankrupt, the foolishness of those that can’t comprehend how it works, yet pretend to know all there is about it is is a different story, though.



1 Cor 2:14

14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> 1 Cor 2:14
> 
> 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.



Yep, 
we’re back to the super-duper decoder ring. 

*


----------



## NE GA Pappy

ky55 said:


> Yep,
> we’re back to the super-duper decoder ring.
> 
> *



go argue with Paul if you don't like it.  I am just quoting him


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> go argue with Paul if you don't like it.  I am just quoting him



I think we’ve already been here in this thread...




ky55 said:


> Are you referring to Paul?




Seems like there was something about the founder of your religion??



NE GA Pappy said:


> maybe so.  The founder of our religion said .


----------



## ky55

NE GA Pappy said:


> go argue with Paul if you don't like it.  I am just quoting him



So is Paul the actual source after all?

*


----------



## ky55

Spotlite said:


> The Pope or no one else is in a position to decide who went where. It would be foolish to tell anyone where someone went. None of us, not even the Pope knows what happened between that man and his beliefs in his final moments.
> 
> The core of Christianity is not bankrupt, the foolishness of those that can’t comprehend how it works, yet pretend to know all there is about it is is a different story, though.



According to the basic tenets of Christianity, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he has the final authority to say who went where.
Go back to page one of this thread.

*


----------



## Israel

ky55 said:


> According to the basic tenets of Christianity, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he has the final authority to say who went where.
> Go back to page one of this thread.
> 
> *



This is in one way perfect. That it is said.

What is, is.

What is not, is not.

That statement is clearly, not.

There is no such a thing as the _vicarious presence_ of Christ.

Christ is all that is present.

vic·ar
ËˆvikÉ™r/Submit
noun
noun: vicar; plural noun: vicars
(in the Roman Catholic Church) a representative or deputy of a bishop.
(in the Episcopal Church) a member of the clergy in charge of a chapel.
(in the Church of England) an incumbent of a parish where tithes formerly passed to a chapter or religious house or layman.
(in other Anglican Churches) a member of the clergy deputizing for another.
a cleric or choir member appointed to sing certain parts of a cathedral service.




Origin
Middle English: via Anglo-Norman French from Old French vicaire, from Latin vicarius â€˜substitute,â€™ from vic- â€˜change, turn, placeâ€™ (compare with vice2).


And though I may not be fully persuaded that christianity (in word) by this association is completely abandoned to in-utility, it is plain that one thing watered down...calls for other things to be watered up. Or set ablaze. 

Go through, go through the gates; prepare you the way of the people; build up, build up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a banner for the people. Behold, the LORD has proclaimed unto the ends of the earth, Say you to the daughter of Zion, Behold, your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.


Sometimes the foil of what is not must be enunciated so that what is, may take its proper place in our minds and hearts.

What is not: "And Lo,_ it is like_ I am with you always, even to the end of the age."


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Do you think it would be a hard task for your god to reach me? Do you think that a god with the capabilities that you say your god has would be able to contact me in a way that I would absolutely understand?
> 
> Would you please ask your god to do that?
> I am open and willing to be contacted.
> I was once a very dedicated believer. The more I listened the less I heard. My mind is still open. Will your god contact me?



You are definitely not open to it. In fact, you are probably the most closed person to this that I have ever encountered. But don't despair, because there are none that are so hard that God can't soften and cause to truly be open "in Him". It takes a resurrection of the heart my friend. Death to life. Right now you are a walking dead man.


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> According to the basic tenets of Christianity, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he has the final authority to say who went where.
> Go back to page one of this thread.
> 
> *



The Pope is not anything to anyone except the Catholic, and certainly doesn’t represent the basic tenets of all Christianity. Just another doctrine.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You are definitely not open to it. In fact, you are probably the most closed person to this that I have ever encountered. But don't despair, because there are none that are so hard that God can't soften and cause to truly be open "in Him". It takes a resurrection of the heart my friend. Death to life. Right now you are a walking dead man.



Just more of your typical fill in the gap style of guesswork based off of extremely limited knowledge about the subject.

Good work Quincy. You've solved another one.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> The Pope is not anything to anyone except the Catholic, and certainly doesn’t represent the basic tenets of all Christianity. Just another doctrine.



Are you saying he is yet another Christian that is obviously mistaken in his interpretations? 
I figured the rings and entourage meant something.


----------



## atlashunter

The kid wasn’t asking the pope to decide where to send his father. He was asking what happened to his father. After spending 2,000 years telling people every one is destined to burn and how they can avoid it it’s a bit late in the game to claim ignorance.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> You are definitely not open to it. In fact, you are probably the most closed person to this that I have ever encountered. But don't despair, because there are none that are so hard that God can't soften and cause to truly be open "in Him". It takes a resurrection of the heart my friend. Death to life. Right now you are a walking dead man.





Yeah anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is dead.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> Yeah anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is dead.



Didn't say that.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Just more of your typical fill in the gap style of guesswork based off of extremely limited knowledge about the subject.
> 
> Good work Quincy. You've solved another one.



Sounds like some more of your "openness".


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Sounds like some more of your "openness".



I can certainly voice my thoughts and intentions. They do not have to coincide.

My willingness to be contacted by a god does not in any way shape or form mean that my thoughts have to change first.
My thoughts and opinions may change after contact not before welder.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> Didn't say that.



No you just strongly implied it. If he believed as you do you wouldn’t have said it.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> The Pope is not anything to anyone except the Catholic, and certainly doesn’t represent the basic tenets of all Christianity. Just another doctrine.





> The Pope is not anything to anyone except the Catholic,


You know there are over a billion Catholics in the world right? That's 10 times as many Baptist.
What you re saying is kinda like saying "money is not anything to anyone except people who have bills" 


> Just another doctrine


.
Uhhhh.... oh never mind.

Sorry the Catholic in me got out of control there for a second


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> Do you think it would be a hard task for your god to reach me? Do you think that a god with the capabilities that you say your god has would be able to contact me in a way that I would absolutely understand?
> 
> Would you please ask your god to do that?
> *I am open and willing to be contacted.
> I was once a very dedicated believer.* The more I listened the less I heard. My mind is still open. Will your god contact me?



There is a difference in believing and being saved. If you were very dedicated, as in proverbs you would have trusted him and not leaned unto your own understanding. At some point from where you were a dedicated believer to where you are at now I would say you questioned something. At that point you walked away from him instead of trusting in him. When saved your life changes, your heart changes, there is love and joy in Christ. If you were truly open and willing to be contacted you would have listened before when you were a "very dedicated believer". Just because you believed does not mean you had the love for the father. I know those who were saved, who were called to preach that for some reason or another got mad. Yet they have never denounced God, they were saved and their freewill has got them to where they are at now. There is love there for the father and with that love you do not denounce him, much less lose the belief if you are saved not just a believer.

Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.


1 Peter 1:8
8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> No you just strongly implied it. If he believed as you do you wouldn’t have said it.



I actually hope someday he believes far more than me. That he can truly say "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief". That is the constant prayer of the believer.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> The kid wasn’t asking the pope to decide where to send his father. He was asking what happened to his father. After spending 2,000 years telling people every one is destined to burn and how they can avoid it it’s a bit late in the game to claim ignorance.


Its never too late to improve your business model. Return on investment and all that


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I can certainly voice my thoughts and intentions. They do not have to coincide.
> 
> My willingness to be contacted by a god does not in any way shape or form mean that my thoughts have to change first.
> My thoughts and opinions may change after contact not before welder.



Your thoughts and opinions will certainly change, as well as your willingness.
You deceive yourself if you think you are willing now.

You will go from "kicking against the pricks" to "Lord what would you have me to do ?"


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Are you saying he is yet another Christian that is obviously mistaken in his interpretations?
> .


I can agree with you here.


WaltL1 said:


> You know there are over a billion Catholics in the world right? That's 10 times as many Baptist.
> What you re saying is kinda like saying "money is not anything to anyone except people who have bills"
> .
> Uhhhh.... oh never mind.
> 
> Sorry the Catholic in me got out of control there for a second


Lol understood........but it’s not an election.......majority doesn’t win

Actually, it fits scripture a few places......and not exact quotes but “there’s a way that seems right to man but the end is destruction” and “narrow is the gate”

As far as the money analogy......... no......I’m saying that the Pope is only an idol to those that idolize him.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> There is a difference in believing and being saved. If you were very dedicated, as in proverbs you would have trusted him and not leaned unto your own understanding. At some point from where you were a dedicated believer to where you are at now I would say you questioned something. At that point you walked away from him instead of trusting in him. When saved your life changes, your heart changes, there is love and joy in Christ. If you were truly open and willing to be contacted you would have listened before when you were a "very dedicated believer". Just because you believed does not mean you had the love for the father. I know those who were saved, who were called to preach that for some reason or another got mad. Yet they have never denounced God, they were saved and their freewill has got them to where they are at now. There is love there for the father and with that love you do not denounce him, much less lose the belief if you are saved not just a believer.
> 
> Proverbs 3:5-6
> 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
> 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
> 
> 
> 1 Peter 1:8
> 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:



J-seph, please don't take this the wrong way.
You absolutely have no idea of how I had led my religious life, my thoughts, my prayers, or my sincerity.
In fact it seems as though you, like just about all believers, are using yourself as the universal manual for how beliefs are supposed to work. 
Your self imposed level of holiness is exactly why I started to question other believers, work my way into questioning the organized religion that is made up of those believers and into the hard questions that have to do with a god.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Your thoughts and opinions will certainly change, as well as your willingness.
> You deceive yourself if you think you are willing now.
> 
> You will go from "kicking against the pricks" to "Lord what would you have me to do ?"



The suggestion that "you have to first believe and not dare question anything that bothers you" or you are not truly serious is nonsense.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> The suggestion that "you have to first believe and not dare question anything that bothers you" or you are not truly serious is nonsense.



Don't mistake what I'm saying. You have to be made ABLE to believe bfore you can believe.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Don't mistake what I'm saying. You have to be made ABLE to believe bfore you can believe.



I am not mistaking what you are saying at all.
I question your authority.
I question your knowledge.
I question your source.

What you say is predictable based off of those three.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> The kid wasn’t asking the pope to decide where to send his father. He was asking what happened to his father. After spending 2,000 years telling people every one is destined to burn and how they can avoid it it’s a bit late in the game to claim ignorance.



I don’t think ignorance was displayed here. If anything, the Pope showed compassion and hope to a kid that could potentially keep the boy from becoming damaged for life until he’s old enough to understand everything. I seriously believe that if the boy was old enough to fully understand everything, the Pope would have handled it differently but certainly not in front of a crowd either, that would be embarrassing to the boy.

You accuse Christianity of being damaging and immoral and somehow you think it’s just ok to tell the boy his dad is gone to the burn pit and let the chips fall without knowing anything about the boys mental capacity or his understanding of everything???

Obviously you’ve not dealt much with young kids, and people that don’t fully understand. There’s a time for everything. 

My wife’s cousin committed suicide and his two boys grew up thinking it was an accidental shooting. When they were of age and could handle the truth, their mother told them what happened and they’re just fine. Telling a young boy that his father killed himself before the boy is old enough to handle it and understand it is toxic, yet you’d prefer do exactly what you accuse Christianity of doing.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> The suggestion that "you have to first believe and not dare question anything that bothers you" or you are not truly serious is nonsense.



That’s called special pleading.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> Proverbs 3:5-6
> 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
> 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.









No thanks.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think ignorance was displayed here. If anything, the Pope showed compassion and hope to a kid that could potentially keep the boy from becoming damaged for life until he’s old enough to understand everything. I seriously believe that if the boy was old enough to fully understand everything, the Pope would have handled it differently but certainly not in front of a crowd either, that would be embarrassing to the boy.
> 
> You accuse Christianity of being damaging and immoral and somehow you think it’s just ok to tell the boy his dad is gone to the burn pit and let the chips fall without knowing anything about the boys mental capacity or his understanding of everything???
> 
> Obviously you’ve not dealt much with young kids, and people that don’t fully understand. There’s a time for everything.
> 
> My wife’s cousin committed suicide and his two boys grew up thinking it was an accidental shooting. When they were of age and could handle the truth, their mother told them what happened and they’re just fine. Telling a young boy that his father killed himself before the boy is old enough to handle it and understand it is toxic, yet you’d prefer do exactly what you accuse Christianity of doing.





> If anything, the Pope showed compassion and hope to a kid that could potentially keep the boy from becoming damaged for life until he’s old enough to understand everything.


On the flip side, the more fundamental/traditional Christians would probably say that this is what is wrong with the church these days - putting people's feelings over doctrine.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by bullethead
> The suggestion that "you have to first believe and not dare question anything that bothers you" or you are not truly serious is nonsense.





atlashunter said:


> That’s called special pleading.


There is typically only one reason that you are encouraged not to question.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> There is typically only one reason that you are encouraged not to question.



Questioning is not the problem. The Bereans questioned everything, only they did it in belief, not unbelief. The foundational belief in Jesus as the Son of God was there(placed by the Spirit). Everything else was scrutinized ,based on this foundation.


----------



## ky55

welderguy said:


> Questioning is not the problem. The Bereans questioned everything, only they did it in belief, not unbelief. The foundational belief in Jesus as the Son of God was there(placed by the Spirit). Everything else was scrutinized ,based on this foundation.



Maybe a little confirmation bias there?


----------



## Day trip

Test everything; retain what is good.
Refrain from every kind of evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Questioning is not the problem. The Bereans questioned everything, only they did it in belief, not unbelief. The foundational belief in Jesus as the Son of God was there(placed by the Spirit). Everything else was scrutinized ,based on this foundation.


When their mind was made up about one thing, they only really questioned half of the rest.


----------



## atlashunter

ky55 said:


> Maybe a little confirmation bias there?





Question all you want as long as you’ve already assumed the answer.


----------



## atlashunter

Day trip said:


> Test everything; retain what is good.
> Refrain from every kind of evil.
> 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22



^Much better.


----------



## ky55

atlashunter said:


> Question all you want as long as you’ve already assumed the answer.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> There is typically only one reason that you are encouraged not to question.



It’s standard procedure for cults.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> J-seph, please don't take this the wrong way.
> You absolutely have no idea of how I had led my religious life, my thoughts, my prayers, or my sincerity.
> In fact it seems as though you, like just about all believers, are using yourself as the universal manual for how beliefs are supposed to work.
> Your self imposed level of holiness is exactly why I started to question other believers, work my way into questioning the organized religion that is made up of those believers and into the hard questions that have to do with a god.


However, if you believed as you said you did why are you where you are at now? I am far from a manual for how beliefs are supposed to work. If you were a believer, a Christian and you followed Gods word as it is written then how did you end up as a non-believer? If you believed as you said you did then why would you lean on your own understanding rather than trust in faith. Why would you question other believers when it is a personal relationship between you and God? I see a little bit of doubt got in, then a little more, then you lost faith and went on what others said. With each degree of doubt you got farther and farther away. I am not judging but I do see a believer who lacked faith. 
I do not want to seem as though I try to push anything down anyone's throat. My wish and prayer is that each one of y'all would have his existence proven to you. I just know what I have experienced in my life this far as well in my late wifes life and my current wifes life and to me that is proof enough. If I have came across as you described above in your post then my apologies. I just cannot understand and I am trying to stop worrying about understanding as to how blessed and great my life has been with God in it compared to the miserable feeling and aggravation before I had him in my life and when I was not in his will. Again apologies


----------



## j_seph

atlashunter said:


> No thanks.


Oh I forgot that this was Christians that done this, my bad.

*America’s Rebellion*

 The third reason the attacks occurred relates to what  has been happening inside America since the 1960’s. As I have often  said, and as I tried to document in my recent book, _Living for Christ in the End Times_, the United States is a nation in rebellion against God.
 We are in the process of jettisoning our Christian  heritage. Christian leaders are denying the fundamentals of the faith.  Political leaders have been determined to convert us into a secular  society. Americans have responded by embracing a hedonistic lifestyle.  In the words of Judge Robert H. Bork, ever since the mid-20th Century,  we have been “slouching towards Gomorrah.” In the process, we have  become the moral polluter of planet earth through the exportation of our  immoral and violent television programs and movies.
 How does all this relate to why the attacks of  September 11 took place? The point is that the attacks were permitted by  God as a judgment on the United States for the sins of our nation, for  our rebellion against God and His Word.
 I therefore see the attacks as a spiritual wake-up  call from the Lord. Think about it for a moment — God allowed the  symbols of American pride to be destroyed, the symbols of both wealth  and power: the Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington,  D.C.
 We must face up to the unpleasant reality that we are  a nation in rebellion against God. And we must realize that our  rebellion is particularly dangerous. The reason is that we have been  blessed more abundantly with freedom, prosperity, and spiritual riches  than any other nation in history. Why is this so significant? Because  the Word of God teaches that those to whom much is given, much is  expected (Luke 12:47-48).  That means we are going to be held to a higher level of accountability  than other nations. And it means our rebellion is going to be judged  more harshly.
 As we began turning our back on God during the 20th  Century, God started placing judgments upon us to call us to repentance.  The Vietnam War was a judgment. Additional judgments included the drug  epidemic, the homosexual scourge, the AIDS plague, the glut of  pornography, and the rebellion of young people.
 The first chapter of Romans teaches that God pours  out His wrath on a rebellious nation by stepping back, lowering His  hedge of protection, and allowing evil to multiply. It’s as if He were  saying, “If you really want to live in a fouled nest, then I will let  you.” According to Romans 1, when He first steps back, a sexual revolution occurs (Romans 1:24-25).  That happened in the United States in the 1960’s. If the society  persists in its rebellion, then God will take another step back and  lower His hedge of protection even more. The result will be a plague of  homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27).  The United States has been experiencing this judgment since the 1970’s.  If the society continues its rebellion, God will take a third step back  and deliver the nation to a “depraved mind” (Romans 1:28-31). This is the point at which the Lord moves the nation from judgment to destruction. We are at that point.
 We have dug in our heels and set our jaw against God.  We have been shaking our fist at Him, saying, “Who are You to try to  tell us what to do?” We have thumbed our nose at the very One who has  blessed us beyond anything we have ever deserved.
 So, I believe that God allowed the attacks of  September 11, 2001 in order to get our attention — to call our nation to  repentance before He is forced by His character to deliver us from  judgment to destruction.
*God and Evil*

 Now, I know that many Christians have great  difficulty with the idea that God could allow such horror to take place.  We want to just flippantly write it all off as “the work of Satan.”
 The interesting thing is that the Bible has no such  difficulty. In the Bible, all calamities are ascribed to God, whether  they be natural disasters or acts of war. That’s because God is  sovereign. He is in control. Nothing can happen without His permission.  That’s why when Satan wanted to touch Job, he first had to ask God’s  permission (Job 1:6-12).
 Keep in mind that God has a perfect will and a  permissive will. For example, the Bible states point blank that God does  not wish that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance  (2 Peter 3:9).  In other words, it is God’s perfect will that all people be saved. But  in His permissive will, God allows people to use their free will to  reject Him and thus be lost.
 God has a perfect will for history. It will result in  the triumph of Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords, ruling over  all the nations of the world, with the world flooded with peace,  righteousness, and justice. As God moves toward the accomplishment of  that goal, He must deal with the evil of Satan and Man.
 Thankfully, God has the wisdom and power to orchestrate all the evil of both Satan and Man to the triumph of Jesus.
 The Bible is full of examples of this fundamental  truth. One that comes to mind is found in the book of Habakkuk. Before  the time of Habakkuk, the Jews had been divided into two nations. The  southern nation of Judah, consisting of two tribes, was faithful to the  Lord, and God blessed that nation with the presence of His Shekinah  Glory in their Temple in Jerusalem. The northern nation of Israel,  consisting of ten tribes, was a nation that had been in rebellion  against God since its establishment. The nation wallowed in idolatry and  refused to repent, so God finally sent the Assyrians to conquer it.
 A hundred years later, the southern nation of Judah  was following in the steps of its northern sister. The people of Judah  had become engulfed in pride and had turned their backs on God. The Lord  told Habakkuk to call the people of Judah to repentance or else suffer  His wrath. Habakkuk did as the Lord directed, and his message was  despised. He was ridiculed and rebuked. Finally, Habakkuk cried out to  God, asking Him to validate the prophet’s message by sending judgments  upon the nation. The Lord astounded him by revealing that He was about  to send the Chaldeans to destroy his nation.
 Habakkuk wanted some wrath from God to fall on his  nation, but he wanted just a little. The idea that God was about to send  the most evil nation in the world to destroy Judah was beyond his  comprehension. He responded by asking the Lord a very profound question:  “How can You who are holy, just and righteous punish those who are evil with those who are more evil?” The Lord responded by saying, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
 It was a tough answer. The Lord was in effect saying,  “Who are you to question Me? Your duty is to trust Me, not to question  Me.”
 As Habakkuk wrestled with this difficult answer, the  Lord helped him by giving him a very dramatic vision of the Second  Coming of the Messiah, showing Habakkuk that when that event occurs, the  Messiah will pour out the wrath of God on all the nations of the world.  Reassured with God’s eternal perspective, Habakkuk responded by singing  a great song of tough faith in which he asserted that even if the Lord  sent the army and destroyed his nation, he would “exult in the Lord [and]…rejoice in the God of my salvation [for] the Lord God is my strength” (Habakkuk 3:18-19).
 Well, God did send the army. The city of Jerusalem  was destroyed. The sacred Temple was burned. The nation of Judah was  destroyed. The Jewish people were taken into exile. But today, 2,500  years later, the Jewish people have been regathered from the four  corners of the earth and re-established in their land. The Chaldeans are  in the dustbin of history. God used an evil nation, the Chaldeans, to  discipline the Jews, and then He raised up the Medo-Persian Empire to  demolish the Chaldeans.
 History is also full of examples of God working  through the evil schemes of Satan and Man to accomplish His purposes.  Take World War I as an example. Satan must have thought he had  accomplished one of his greatest successes when he maneuvered the armies  of the world into the mass slaughter that took place at the beginning  of the 20th Century on the battlefields of Europe. Yet God worked  through that evil to implement His end time program for the return of  His Son.
 The point is that World War I resulted in the  liberation of the land of Palestine from 400 years of Turkish rule. The  land was handed over to the British as a League of Nations Mandate, and  the British immediately announced that their intention was to turn it  into a homeland for the Jewish people. This must have panicked Satan  because he knows Bible prophecy, and he therefore knows that the Bible  says the Messiah will return when the Jews have been regathered to their  land and are once again in control of Jerusalem (Zechariah 12). So,  Satan responded by orchestrating World War II and the Nazi Holocaust.  His intention was to annihilate the Jews so that God could not fulfill  His promise to regather them. But God preserved the Jews through the  war, and in the process He motivated them to return to their homeland.  They came out of the Holocaust saying, “Never again! Never again will we  submit ourselves to a Hitler. We will have our own land and our own  state.”
 God worked through the evil of World War I to prepare  the land for the people. In like manner, He worked through the evil of  World War II to prepare the people for the land. Satan has to be the  most frustrated character on planet earth. No matter what he throws at  God, the Lord takes it and turns it around for good.
 Now, let me make one thing very clear: God is not the  source of evil. Evil originates from the free will of Satan and Man  when they use that free will to rebel against God.
 But God allows evil to succeed at times for a  multiplicity of reasons, some known only to Him. The reasons that we can  discern include the following: to test us, to discipline us, and to  sanctify us. Sometimes God allows evil to come into our lives to test us  — not to determine how strong we are (He already knows), but to show us  how weak we are so that we will lean on Him. At other times, God allows  us to suffer because He desires to discipline us for drifting out of  His will. The Bible says God disciplines those whom He loves (Hebrews 12:5).  Suffering is also essential to sanctification — to being shaped more  fully into the image of Jesus. For example, how could you ever show  compassion toward a sick person if you have never been ill?
 Abe Lincoln understood these principles about God and  evil. In the midst of the Civil War he issued a remarkable proclamation  in which he called all Americans to go to their churches and synagogues  and ask the Lord to forgive them and our nation of our sins. He said  this was essential because the Civil War was a judgment of God upon the  nation for its sins.
 To demonstrate again how God can work through evil  acts to accomplish good, consider the tragedy of Pearl Harbor. Before  that attack, public opinion polls in the United States showed that 75 to  80 percent of Americans opposed American entry into the war in Europe.  Americans were overwhelmingly isolationist. Pearl Harbor changed all  that in a matter of minutes. It catapulted us into the war and sealed  the fate of the Nazis. A terrible tragedy worked for good.
 Our second Pearl Harbor of September 11, 2001, is a  call for national repentance. It is a call for us to get on our knees  and repent of our sins — to repent of our materialism, our hedonism, our  idolatry, our pride, and our slaughter of more than 43 million babies  since 1973.
 God loves us. He has richly blessed us. He has worked  through us to spread the Gospel all over the world. He does not want to  deliver us from judgment to destruction. But He will do so, just as He  has done with other rebellious nations, if we do not repent. In fact, He  must do so because His justice, righteousness, and holiness demand it.


----------



## welderguy

Question for bullethead:

When you were a believer, were you born again?


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> Oh I forgot that this was Christians that done this, my bad.



It was people following the advice in that scripture.


----------



## 660griz

I can tell yall one thing, when I become a God, you will not have to quote verses from a book written by men, translated by men, and voted on by men, in order to defend or provide evidence of my accomplishments. 
You will not have to worry about other religions either.
Hold my beer, I got this.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> However, if you believed as you said you did why are you where you are at now? I am far from a manual for how beliefs are supposed to work. If you were a believer, a Christian and you followed Gods word as it is written then how did you end up as a non-believer? If you believed as you said you did then why would you lean on your own understanding rather than trust in faith. Why would you question other believers when it is a personal relationship between you and God? I see a little bit of doubt got in, then a little more, then you lost faith and went on what others said. With each degree of doubt you got farther and farther away. I am not judging but I do see a believer who lacked faith.
> I do not want to seem as though I try to push anything down anyone's throat. My wish and prayer is that each one of y'all would have his existence proven to you. I just know what I have experienced in my life this far as well in my late wifes life and my current wifes life and to me that is proof enough. If I have came across as you described above in your post then my apologies. I just cannot understand and I am trying to stop worrying about understanding as to how blessed and great my life has been with God in it compared to the miserable feeling and aggravation before I had him in my life and when I was not in his will. Again apologies



I was baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran Protestant and was married in a Catholic Church/ceremony. I've seen many sides and practices. None of which seemed to deter my love for or belief in Jesus.
My parents and grandparents were all religious therfore I was raised accordingly.
As I got into my late teens and early 20s the hypocrisy of the parishoners and those who were held in high esteem within the Churches really bothered me. So did the practices of the Church and the answers that I received from Clergy. I really turned to the bible for answers. While doing that my interest on how the bible came to be captured me. I studied gods word in the bible and I studied the history of the bible at the same time. As hard for it was for me to admit it, the two often didnt mesh and that bothered me. It upset me because I was offended that what I was finding was against my beliefs.  I dove into it more thinking that I will prove history wrong and show "them" that the bible trumps anything that they could come with.
It took many years to admit to myself that I may have been wrong and many more to say it out loud. 
I have had "experiences". I owed every little thing to God/Jesus for a long period of time.
I just go with the facts now.
I can wholeheartedly believe whatever I want to believe by closing my eyes and covering my ears when I hear something that I do not like or may not agree with, but I gave that style up and instead go with the facts that prove a scenario is more likely than not.
I am not easily swayed but I will admit when wrong and I am willing to change as the evidence shows.

So when I say that I am open to contact that is what I darn well mean. If you(in general)choose to think I am not genuine I really don't care. If what you say is true about your God then I await my wake up call. If I hear nothing then it certainly confirms what my line of thought has been for the last 20+ years.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Question for bullethead:
> 
> When you were a believer, were you born again?


I was a believer since birth.
At one point during my involvement with religion I honestly felt that I was filled with the spirit and lived my life accordingly sounding like many of you in here. Nobody could tell me otherwise.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I was a believer since birth.
> At one point during my involvement with religion I honestly felt that I was filled with the spirit and lived my life accordingly sounding like many of you in here. Nobody could tell me otherwise.



I respect that. Thank you.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> It was people following the advice in that scripture.



No. It was people that don’t understand scripture. If a person pulls up to a stop sign and sits for hours because the sign doesn’t say “go” is that the signs fault?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No. It was people that don’t understand scripture. If a person pulls up to a stop sign and sits for hours because the sign doesn’t say “go” is that the signs fault?



I would agree with your analogy if it were not for millions upon millions of christians who all claim to be able interpret and understand scripture yet they all say different and conflicting things.

That doesn't sound like a divine power was involved at all. How could it not forsee the discrepancies?


----------



## NCHillbilly

660griz said:


> I can tell yall one thing, when I become a God, you will not have to quote verses from a book written by men, translated by men, and voted on by men, in order to defend or provide evidence of my accomplishments.
> You will not have to worry about other religions either.
> Hold my beer, I got this.



That's my thought. If God has done all he is said to have done, how hard is it to pop down out of the clouds one day and say howdy? A little public smiting here and  there, and this forum would no longer exist. Everyone would believe.

Why be all cryptic and stay hidden, but expect people to believe in you after you gave them the ability to reason?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Questioning is not the problem. The Bereans questioned everything, only they did it in belief, not unbelief. The foundational belief in Jesus as the Son of God was there(placed by the Spirit). Everything else was scrutinized ,based on this foundation.


Read that to yourself Welder.
You said the Bereans questioned everything and in the very next sentence you told us what they didn't question.

I guess if I just had faith I wouldn't notice that they are opposite of each other?


----------



## Israel

NCHillbilly said:


> That's my thought. If God has done all he is said to have done, how hard is it to pop down out of the clouds one day and say howdy? A little public smiting here and  there, and this forum would no longer exist. Everyone would believe.
> 
> Why be all cryptic and stay hidden, but expect people to believe in you after you gave them the ability to reason?[/



Some believe he is not hidden, even if not fully apprehended.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Some believe he is not hidden, even if not fully apprehended.



“Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?. Of all the means I know to lead men, the most effectual is a concealed mystery. The hankering of the mind is irresistible.” 
-- Adam Weishaupt


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Read that to yourself Welder.
> You said the Bereans questioned everything and in the very next sentence you told us what they didn't question.
> 
> I guess if I just had faith I wouldn't notice that they are opposite of each other?



Oh yeah, I forgot you are one of those that you can't make generalizations to.
Ok, obviously the Bereans didn't question EVERY thing. There were probably a few things like: Does Walt have a brain? Does he have common sense? Does he ALWAYS knitpick or just sometimes?

So, you are so correct Walt, they did not question every single thing infinitum.
Thanks for that scholarly observation.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I would agree with your analogy if it were not for millions upon millions of christians who all claim to be able interpret and understand scripture yet they all say different and conflicting things.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a divine power was involved at all. How could it not forsee the discrepancies?





I am aware that millions "claim"....... and there is nothing no one can do about another`s claim. A lot of fat people claim to have thyroid problems but ate 12 pieces of chicken for lunch. Doesn't make their claim correct.


But..........it did for-see the discrepancies. It even says that some would pervert the Gospel. 

I for one, don't fool with snakes and don't interpret anything from scripture that tells me to go play with one, or fly a plane into a building, drink poison, etc. or even the polygamist lifestyle. Saw a 30 minute informational piece recently about a couple that chose this lifestyle to share Gods word with others. Those folks are far from anything Christianity even though they call their selves Christians and claim to have a full understanding of scripture.   

I don't get any of that from scripture, one can only assume that it is a mixture of indoctrination (brain washing), justification of ones own lifestyle or belief of how things should be, or the comprehension level of those that are lead down those paths.

I have a cousin you should meet. He is a self proclaimed preacher, bartender, wrestler, country singer, multiple business owner, landlord, song writer and producer that picks up pallets for a living and stacks them on top of his 1984 chevy van and lives in a camper that he rents from his brother and owes everything he can steel to 3 different women for child support. 

That style of a person covers a ton of self proclaimed Christians. For him, it is most likely a comprehension level mixed with self justification. His proclaiming to be a Christian / preacher is nothing but "don't look down on me in my situation, God is just testing me" (it has absolutely nothing do with being a dead beat drunk that cant pass a drug test to get a job)

Divine Power is there.............so is our ability to believe or not believe or lean unto our own understanding.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> “Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?. Of all the means I know to lead men, the most effectual is a concealed mystery. The hankering of the mind is irresistible.”
> -- Adam Weishaupt



LOL...that's pretty good. And then if one were to say..."but I don't seek to lead you"...then you come back and say "ahh...precisely what someone trying to take advantage would say!"

But then if I say, "alas, I am found out as one in craven desire to control another"...you say "aha! a feint at unabashed honesty of ego to throw me off..." and then you say, and I say...

And one may never see in the mix of that the plain call to the umpire. So, when he does show...no one has any room to play coy. you feel me dog?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> So, when he does show...no one has any room to play coy. you feel me dog?



Which one will show?
We could both be playing, 'coy'.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> Which one will show?
> We could both be playing, 'coy'.



Turn up the volume...find out.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot you are one of those that you can't make generalizations to.
> Ok, obviously the Bereans didn't question EVERY thing. There were probably a few things like: Does Walt have a brain? Does he have common sense? Does he ALWAYS knitpick or just sometimes?
> 
> So, you are so correct Walt, they did not question every single thing infinitum.
> Thanks for that scholarly observation.


Yep it is certainly my fault that THE POINT THAT YOU ARE MAKING TO US contradicts itself.
Here's another scholarly observation -
When a person makes contradictory statements the people they make it to questions their credibility and thinks they are just flapping their gums.


----------



## Israel

Wapiti.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> No. It was people that don’t understand scripture. If a person pulls up to a stop sign and sits for hours because the sign doesn’t say “go” is that the signs fault?



Everyone thinks everyone else is doing it wrong. Islamists aren’t unique in that regard. But insofar as that proverbs scripture goes that is exactly what they did. Put the brain in neutral, put faith in god, don’t question, follow “his guidance” which invariably becomes mans guidance because there is no god whispering in anyone’s ear. Bad idea. Never subjugate reason to faith.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> LOL...that's pretty good. And then if one were to say..."but I don't seek to lead you"...then you come back and say "ahh...precisely what someone trying to take advantage would say!"
> 
> But then if I say, "alas, I am found out as one in craven desire to control another"...you say "aha! a feint at unabashed honesty of ego to throw me off..." and then you say, and I say...
> 
> And one may never see in the mix of that the plain call to the umpire. So, when he does show...no one has any room to play coy. you feel me dog?



Let us know when he shows up. It’s only been 2,000 years that you’ve been waiting. I’m sure he will be along any minute now. Dog...


----------



## Hooked On Quack

Sorry bro, but yo Dad's all dressed up with nowhere to go.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Everyone thinks everyone else is doing it wrong. Islamists aren’t unique in that regard. But insofar as that proverbs scripture goes that is exactly what they did. Put the brain in neutral, put faith in god, don’t question, follow “his guidance” which invariably becomes mans guidance because there is no god whispering in anyone’s ear. Bad idea. Never subjugate reason to faith.


In their case, I agree, no god told them to do that. Obviously, there’s reason to believe that some are doing it wrong.

So you pull out a scripture and pull out an event that some crazies did and you judge all of Christianity with that? I’m sure there are other scriptures that get abused by some other crazies.......all you’re doing is justifying your own biased opinion.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Let us know when he shows up. It’s only been 2,000 years that you’ve been waiting. I’m sure he will be along any minute now. Dog...



He has. You missed him.


----------



## Spotlite

Hooked On Quack said:


> Sorry bro, but yo Dad's all dressed up with nowhere to go.



And on another day they’d be screaming about how harsh this is for a Christian to say but since it doesn’t fit that agenda today, it had to come from another angle lol.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I am aware that millions "claim"....... and there is nothing no one can do about another`s claim. A lot of fat people claim to have thyroid problems but ate 12 pieces of chicken for lunch. Doesn't make their claim correct.
> 
> 
> But..........it did for-see the discrepancies. It even says that some would pervert the Gospel.
> 
> I for one, don't fool with snakes and don't interpret anything from scripture that tells me to go play with one, or fly a plane into a building, drink poison, etc. or even the polygamist lifestyle. Saw a 30 minute informational piece recently about a couple that chose this lifestyle to share Gods word with others. Those folks are far from anything Christianity even though they call their selves Christians and claim to have a full understanding of scripture.
> 
> I don't get any of that from scripture, one can only assume that it is a mixture of indoctrination (brain washing), justification of ones own lifestyle or belief of how things should be, or the comprehension level of those that are lead down those paths.
> 
> I have a cousin you should meet. He is a self proclaimed preacher, bartender, wrestler, country singer, multiple business owner, landlord, song writer and producer that picks up pallets for a living and stacks them on top of his 1984 chevy van and lives in a camper that he rents from his brother and owes everything he can steel to 3 different women for child support.
> 
> That style of a person covers a ton of self proclaimed Christians. For him, it is most likely a comprehension level mixed with self justification. His proclaiming to be a Christian / preacher is nothing but "don't look down on me in my situation, God is just testing me" (it has absolutely nothing do with being a dead beat drunk that cant pass a drug test to get a job)
> 
> Divine Power is there.............so is our ability to believe or not believe or lean unto our own understanding.



MmHmmm, only so many "real" christians out of 1.2 billion. It's just convenient to include them all as christians when someone wants to pad the numbers of "largest" or "fastest growing" religion.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Let us know when he shows up. It’s only been 2,000 years that you’ve been waiting. I’m sure he will be along any minute now. Dog...


 
I have barely waited at all...and He comes.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> In their case, I agree, no god told them to do that. Obviously, there’s reason to believe that some are doing it wrong.
> 
> So you pull out a scripture and pull out an event that some crazies did and you judge all of Christianity with that? I’m sure there are other scriptures that get abused by some other crazies.......all you’re doing is justifying your own biased opinion.



There’s as much evidence that they were acting on behalf of a deity as there is for anyone else including Christians which is to say, none at all. The point is they believed they were and they put their faith first. Let’s not act as if the Muslims are the only branch of Abrahamic monotheism to have committed murder under the guise of serving god.

I didn’t pull the scripture out. One of your fellow Christians did that. I just pointed out how foolish that scripture is. If you notice I later complimented a better scripture. We all have bias. You’re not special in that regard. If you think I’m wrong then show it instead of whining about bias.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> I have barely waited at all...and He comes.



Post a picture of him. Always wondered if he was really a long haired white man.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> And on another day they’d be screaming about how harsh this is for a Christian to say but since it doesn’t fit that agenda today, it had to come from another angle lol.



The pope didn’t say that. What does that say about his agenda?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> He has. You missed him.



That’s the empty assertion. Last I checked you’re all waiting for him to come back.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> He has. You missed him.



Where's he at and the rest of it?


----------



## ky55

atlashunter said:


> That’s the empty assertion. Last I checked you’re all waiting for him to come back.



All?
Seems like I remember reading somewhere that he got all his bidness done and came back around 70 AD?


----------



## Day trip

ky55 said:


> All?
> Seems like I remember reading somewhere that he got all his bidness done and came back around 70 AD?



Please explain this.


----------



## Day trip

atlashunter said:


> Post a picture of him. Always wondered if he was really a long haired white man.



You are immersed in him, we all are.  Recognition is the problem.


----------



## ky55

Day trip said:


> Please explain this.



Preterism

http://www.preterist.org/about-us/what-is-preterist-view/

“Preterist” means past in fulfillment, and “Futurist” means future in fulfillment. Preterist basically means the opposite of Futurist. Futurists believe most end-time prophecies (especially the big three events — the Second Coming, Resurrection, and Judgment) are yet to be fulfilled. Preterists believe that most or all of Bible Prophecy (especially the big three events) has already been fulfilled in Christ and the on-going expansion of His Eternal Kingdom. Many Futurists do not really believe that Christ has been successful in fully establishing His Kingdom. They think it was indefinitely postponed when the Jews rejected and crucified Jesus.

*************

WWJD. When Was Jesus Due? What did Christ say about the TIME of His coming? He said he would return in that first century generation, before “some of those standing there tasted death” (Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:27,28; Matt. 24:34). Did you ever wonder why the First Century Christians expected Jesus to come in their lifetime, and how they got that expectation? Take a look at the extreme sense of urgency and imminency in these passages: James 5:8,9; 1 Pet. 4:7; Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:27,28; Matt. 24:34. These verses have always troubled Bible students, and have been used by liberal theologians to attack the inspiration of Scripture. They reason that these passages were not fulfilled when they were supposed to be (the first century generation), so Jesus and the NT writers failed in their predictions and were therefore not inspired. But these verses point to Christ’s coming in some sense in connection with the Fall of Jerusalem at 70 AD.



I think there are some members here who follow the doctrine. 


*


----------



## atlashunter

ky55 said:


> All?
> Seems like I remember reading somewhere that he got all his bidness done and came back around 70 AD?



Yeah and nobody even noticed. And a thousand years is equal to 40. I remember that.


----------



## Day trip

Is the atheist dad going to heaven?  What is heaven?  We repeat second hand what we are told then act as if we are experts on the subject.  Atheist can only say “No” because the common definition of heaven relates to God whom they say doesn’t exist.  Anyone else can answer no better than Pope Francis without assumptions. 

It’s unfortunate that the concept that we call God is restricted to our own current understanding or more accurately, misunderstandings.  I for one see why atheists are so often bullied into the posture they take on the subject but it’s still not an excuse.  Denying somebody else’s ideas about God is fine.  I just don’t think it wise to throw the baby out with the bath water.  

From my experience, is the atheist dad going to heaven?  I say, Yes, if he chooses to, it’s up to him just like it’s up to you.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> MmHmmm, only so many "real" christians out of 1.2 billion. It's just convenient to include them all as christians when someone wants to pad the numbers of "largest" or "fastest growing" religion.


I believe you completely missed the point. Your comment has nothing to do with what I said. I’m aware that “millions claim”. That’s far from padding the numbers. 


atlashunter said:


> There’s as much evidence that they were acting on behalf of a deity as there is for anyone else including Christians which is to say, none at all. The point is they believed they were and they put their faith first. Let’s not act as if the Muslims are the only branch of Abrahamic monotheism to have committed murder under the guise of serving god.
> 
> I didn’t pull the scripture out. One of your fellow Christians did that. I just pointed out how foolish that scripture is. If you notice I later complimented a better scripture. We all have bias. You’re not special in that regard. If you think I’m wrong then show it instead of whining about bias.



So what if they believed. That doesn’t make the scripture wrong. You are aware that the latest movement is the attack on the 2A??? There’s tons of idiots out there that misinterpret that. By your logic, I guess the 2A is wrong because some don’t get it or don’t f know how to use it. 

Yea Jim Jones and David Koresh to name a few. So their misinterpretation represents all Christians???? That’s a very close minded biased opinion.

If that’s the principle, all Atheist must be church shooters since Devin Kelley..........


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Is the atheist dad going to heaven?  What is heaven?  We repeat second hand what we are told then act as if we are experts on the subject.  Atheist can only say “No” because the common definition of heaven relates to God whom they say doesn’t exist.  Anyone else can answer no better than Pope Francis without assumptions.
> 
> It’s unfortunate that the concept that we call God is restricted to our own current understanding or more accurately, misunderstandings.  I for one see why atheists are so often bullied into the posture they take on the subject but it’s still not an excuse.  Denying somebody else’s ideas about God is fine.  I just don’t think it wise to throw the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> From my experience, is the atheist dad going to heaven?  I say, Yes, if he chooses to, it’s up to him just like it’s up to you.





> Atheist can only say “No” because the common definition of heaven relates to God whom they say doesn’t exist.


I'm not sure this is accurate.
The Atheist also says no because according to Christian "rules" the Atheist is not going to Heaven.
That doesn't have to do with the Atheist not believing in God or Heaven. It has to do with using your (Christianity) own set of rules.
If you read the responses from the AAs that is the position. "No he cant go to Heaven because your rules says he cant so why didn't the Pope just say that".


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not sure this is accurate.
> The Atheist also says no because according to Christian "rules" the Atheist is not going to Heaven.
> That doesn't have to do with the Atheist not believing in God or Heaven. It has to do with using your (Christianity) own set of rules.
> If you read the responses from the AAs that is the position. "No he cant go to Heaven because your rules says he cant so why didn't the Pope just say that".



Is the discussion about reality or playing the victim?  So because Christians say atheists can’t go to heaven, NOW you cannot go to heaven? I didn’t know these Christians were so powerful.     

 On the other hand, if atheist truely don’t believe in God and all of his accessories then why would they care about this?  It never bothered me in the least when my daughter had friends over for a pretend tea party and they wouldn’t  give me a cup of  pretend tea because I wasn’t a girl.  I never once went and argued on any forum about being excluded and victimized.  How is this any different? 

Ultimately, Pope Francis spoke very wisely.


----------



## Israel

Day trip said:


> Is the discussion about reality or playing the victim?  So because Christians say atheists can’t go to heaven, NOW you cannot go to heaven? I didn’t know these Christians were so powerful.
> 
> On the other hand, if atheist truely don’t believe in God and all of his accessories then why would they care about this?  It never bothered me in the least when my daughter had friends over for a pretend tea party and they wouldn’t  give me a cup of  pretend tea because I wasn’t a girl.  I never once went and argued on any forum about being excluded and victimized.  How is this any different?
> 
> Ultimately, Pope Francis spoke very wisely.




By exercise of reason, by impartation and imputation of judgement through word and expression...none is let out of the net that we all _do truly believe they exist_ even if we may not be found true to them.

For He was indeed crucified in weakness, yet He lives by God’s power. And though we are weak in Him, yet by God’s power we will live with Him to serve you. Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Can’t you see for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you — unless you actually fail the test? And I hope you will realize that we have not failed the test.

Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong — not that we will appear to have stood the test, but that you will do what is right, even if we appear to have failed. 


For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.…


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Is the discussion about reality or playing the victim?  So because Christians say atheists can’t go to heaven, NOW you cannot go to heaven? I didn’t know these Christians were so powerful.
> 
> On the other hand, if atheist truely don’t believe in God and all of his accessories then why would they care about this?  It never bothered me in the least when my daughter had friends over for a pretend tea party and they wouldn’t  give me a cup of  pretend tea because I wasn’t a girl.  I never once went and argued on any forum about being excluded and victimized.  How is this any different?
> 
> Ultimately, Pope Francis spoke very wisely.


I don't think I made my point clear.
We (AAs) are not whining about being excluded from a heaven. Obviously we don't think it exists.
We are talking here to Christians. Christian doctrine says Atheists aren't going to Heaven. We are questioning why the Pope didn't just say that. We understand he was trying to comfort a suffering child. But by doing that he broke with Christian doctrine. So we are asking why.
Does comforting take precedence over doctrine?
Does he not really believe the doctrine?
Did he just kind of weasel his way out of a tough spot?
Some other reason?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> So what if they believed. That doesn’t make the scripture wrong. You are aware that the latest movement is the attack on the 2A??? There’s tons of idiots out there that misinterpret that. By your logic, I guess the 2A is wrong because some don’t get it or don’t f know how to use it.
> 
> Yea Jim Jones and David Koresh to name a few. So their misinterpretation represents all Christians???? That’s a very close minded biased opinion.
> 
> If that’s the principle, all Atheist must be church shooters since Devin Kelley..........



Their belief is what took them down a very destructive path. It's not a misinterpretation. Let's look at it again.

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

That is exactly what they did. They trusted that they were acting according to Allah's will, fighting for the one true faith, and they believed he was directing their path. Presumably if it could be shown that they really were being directed by god then you would say they did exactly as they should have. And Abraham did as he should have when he put his son on the altar. And the Israelites did as they should have when they committed genocide. And the Christians did as they should have when they killed according to biblical doctrine. Horrific acts that would not be justified on reason alone. Lean not on your own understanding. Lean on faith. That's a very dangerous and stupid thing to do.

You can try to pick and choose when people really acted under his direction and when they don't but that is missing the point. Nobody can deny the bible has accounts of god directing people to do some pretty terrible things. An atheist would say they are never acting under the guidance of a deity because the deity doesn't exist. Instead they use faith to excuse their own unreasonable and the inexcusable actions. It's a way of avoiding personal responsibility. As bad ideas go it ranks near the top.


----------



## atlashunter

Day trip said:


> Is the discussion about reality or playing the victim?  So because Christians say atheists can’t go to heaven, NOW you cannot go to heaven? I didn’t know these Christians were so powerful.
> 
> On the other hand, if atheist truely don’t believe in God and all of his accessories then why would they care about this?  It never bothered me in the least when my daughter had friends over for a pretend tea party and they wouldn’t  give me a cup of  pretend tea because I wasn’t a girl.  I never once went and argued on any forum about being excluded and victimized.  How is this any different?
> 
> Ultimately, Pope Francis spoke very wisely.



If the bible christians have been following for the last couple millennia is true then atheists don't go to heaven. It's neither about reality or victimhood. It's about what the christian religion claims. An honest answer from the pope would have cited any number of scriptures that make clear unbelievers don't go to heaven. But giving an honest answer would have made the religion look bad so the pope gave a pc response that didn't answer the question. His response (and others things he has said) are a tacit acknowledgment that he realizes the immorality of christian doctrine. The christian religion isn't selling so well these days and as a result we are seeing it evolve right before our eyes.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think I made my point clear.
> We (AAs) are not whining about being excluded from a heaven. Obviously we don't think it exists.
> We are talking here to Christians. Christian doctrine says Atheists aren't going to Heaven. We are questioning why the Pope didn't just say that. We understand he was trying to comfort a suffering child. But by doing that he broke with Christian doctrine. So we are asking why.
> Does comforting take precedence over doctrine?
> Does he not really believe the doctrine?
> Did he just kind of weasel his way out of a tough spot?
> Some other reason?



Pretty simple to understand.


----------



## ambush80

I'm glad to see that some Christians keep trying to make apologetic arguments.  It's a demonstration that they're trying to make logical sense of their beliefs.  Most believers simply say that God has a "special" morality and a "special" logic and that we can't understand and don't need to.  When pressed they will admit that it's not a logical position but they don't care.  

I can almost glimpse what religion might look like if all the supernatural and superstitious mumbo jumbo were sloughed off and all that remained is the baby sans the bath water.  It's getting better slowly but the Pope's actions here show me that they can be dragged kicking and screaming into modernity.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-funeral-at-a-time-the-latest-nobel-proves-it

_The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”_

So goes religious reformation.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

WaltL1 said:


> Did he just kind of weasel his way out of a tough spot?



probably this right here.

If not, then he is at best a hypocrite.


----------



## ambush80

Would the conversation end if Christian apologists simply said "From our human perspective, God's morality is wrong, but God has His own morality that we aren't to allowed judge.  So we simply say that whatever God does must be right, kind, good, and loving, regardless of how we might find it abhorrent by our human standards."?

Is that the end of the conversation?  Why do apologists keep coming back trying to explain how God's morality is good and just.  Perhaps their inability to accept that position is a kind of a "***** of the heart" as well.  I would say that when I started questioning religion that it seemed like a personal revelation.  I'm glad people keep asking questions.  

Are these discussions a war of revelations?  If so, I submit that we compare the metrics by which we examine our revelations.  On one hand we have folks that put a premium on evidence that's obvious to everyone, predictive, rational,and repeatable and on the other hand we have folks that expect everyone to accept that what they claim is true because they have felt something very real to them that they don't completely understand, that contradicts natural law, and that is impossible to prove or disprove.  That's allot to ask.  What's the draw?


----------



## welderguy

Who puts any stock in anything the pope says anyway?
...besides people who are just as misguided.

My Bible says call no man father on this earth.

Matthew 23:9-10
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.


----------



## ambush80

NE GA Pappy said:


> probably this right here.
> 
> If not, then he is at best a hypocrite.



Can you think of anyone that you would subject to eternal torture?

Let's think about it.  I've tried to imagine what I would do to someone who kidnapped, raped, tortured and ate my daughter.  If I had them in a cage in my backyard, how long would I torture them?  Maybe a week?  Maybe a month?   Imagine spending every hour peeling their skin off, healing them and then doing it again.  It sounds monstrous.  Even if I could have someone do it for me I can't imagine I would do it for very long.  Even if I didn't have to see it or hear their screams, just knowing that it was happening at my behest would be psychologically and spiritually poisonous.

Now imagine that that person in the cage was a good father, neighbor and citizen but they refused to declare that Jesus is lord.  

How long should they be tortured?  

Any non-insane person would say "not at all".  Do you agree?  I'm not asking what God would do.  I'm asking what YOU would do.  If you find the prospect of treating someone in that way as monstrous as I do then I would say that we are similarly aligned morally.  What is it that allows you to accept that a god that you worship is capable of such barbarity?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Who puts any stock in anything the pope says anyway?
> ...besides people who are just as misguided.
> 
> My Bible says call no man father on this earth.
> 
> Matthew 23:9-10
> 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
> 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.



Is there anyone that you hate so much that you would send them to He11 if you could?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Is there anyone that you hate so much that you would send them to He11 if you could?



No, I deserve it more than anyone.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> No, I deserve it more than anyone.



That's bizarre.

Can you elaborate on that?  What did you do to deserve that kind of punishment?  Is that something you guys were just programmed to say or do you really believe it?  Tell me what you think it would be like for you to be in He11.  Can you describe in detail how your day would look like?  I think you guys just say that because it sounds good.  It's called virtue signalling in modern day parlance.  I don't think you've actually thought about what it would be like. Of course you haven't, because if you had, you would realize that the very concept is monstrous and barbaric.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> That's bizarre.
> 
> Can you elaborate on that?  What did you do to deserve that kind of punishment?  Is that something you guys were just programmed to say or do you really believe it?  Tell me what you think it would be like for you to be in He11.  Can you describe in detail how your day would look like?  I think you guys just say that because it sounds good.  It's called virtue signalling in modern day parlance.  I don't think you've actually thought about what it would be like. Of course you haven't, because if you had, you would realize that the very concept is monstrous and barbaric.



This is hard. But I'll try.
It's not so much what I've done but what I am. When God gave me a new nature, it caused me to see how vile and unclean I was in the presence of One who is infinitely Holy. Without a new nature, you can't and will not see this. If you only have your old nature, you can't relate to what I'm telling you. You can't even get a glimpse of how holy He is. And that makes all the difference. It's not something that's taught by man, it's something that happens inside.

As far as he11 is concerned, I don't understand much about that, honestly. I do know a little about a he11 on earth, but not sure if it is related.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> This is hard. But I'll try.
> It's not so much what I've done but what I am. When God gave me a new nature, it caused me to see how vile and unclean I was in the presence of One who is infinitely Holy. Without a new nature, you can't and will not see this. If you only have your old nature, you can't relate to what I'm telling you. You can't even get a glimpse of how holy He is. And that makes all the difference. It's not something that's taught by man, it's something that happens inside.
> 
> As far as he11 is concerned, I don't understand much about that, honestly. I do know a little about a he11 on earth, but not sure if it is related.



Well, I guess that answers one of my questions above.  You have "special" knowledge.  You have extra super ability that regular folks don't have. We can't discuss it.  I suppose we're done here.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Well, I guess that answers one of my questions above.  You have "special" knowledge.  You have extra super ability that regular folks don't have. We can't discuss it.  I suppose we're done here.



But my question is do you even care? Have you ever cared? If not, why do you keep inquiring about it as if you do? That's what is bizarre to me.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Who puts any stock in anything the pope says anyway?
> ...besides people who are just as misguided.
> 
> My Bible says call no man father on this earth.
> 
> Matthew 23:9-10
> 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
> 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.





> Who puts any stock in anything the pope says anyway?
> ...besides people who are just as misguided.


Over a billion Christians put stock in what he says.
Your prejudice against other denominations is showing.
Do you put stock in what a pastor/preacher/elder says?
Do Jews put stock in what a rabbi says?
Did anybody put stock in what the Apostles said?
The entirety of Christianity has "representatives", Jesus himself used representatives. Was his intention for them to be ignored?

Care to rethink your statement?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Is there anyone that you hate so much that you would send them to He11 if you could?


I know you didn't direct this at me but my answer would be -
Not at the moment no.
Have I ever? Yes
Would probably wish I hadn't after a period of time but they would have been toast by then.
Can I think of scenarios where I would? Yes.

Based on your question would sending someone to He11 be beyond what you think you are capable of?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Well, I guess that answers one of my questions above.  You have "special" knowledge.  You have extra super ability that regular folks don't have. We can't discuss it.  I suppose we're done here.



Maybe you could ask the pope and see if he gives you an answer you like better.


----------



## Day trip

I don’t know how to do that quote thingy that you all do except quoting the whole comment but I would like to address some of the comments.   

# 707 WaltL1 -  I now understand your concern.  The assumed doctrine has been breached.  Not necessarily.  The Catholic Church is a massive one room school house.  The same lesson given to kindergarteners is given to seniors.  The difference is not in the message but the reception of the information ( and I believe this addresses #720 ambush80 also).  Rules are initially given, just like a father raising a child.  The rules begin as “don’t do this”, “do that”, and there is not much explanation. . After practicing rules and protocol we learn to read between the lines,  To see the purpose of the rules and protocol.  Take the Ten Commandments.  (I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods before me. Don’t take the Lords name in vain etc. yields to reveal : Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind). ( Don’t kill, don’t steal etc yields to reveal: love your neighbor as yourself)

You see we all initially evaluate and judge the world based on physical senses and reason.  As we grow, we become aware of another sense that we call the Holy Spirit.  I’m hesitant to use that term because it carries with it preconceived notions.  It is an intuition, a reading between the lines.   As we begin to see the world with our spiritual sense, things open up quit a bit.  Just like a child becoming a teenager, those “do this” and “do that” statements still sort of apply but now with knowledge of why we should or should not do those things.  This maturation provides tremendous freedom and tolerance that the spiritually immature can’t understand.  Pope Francis addresses this child with a very  mature theology and many people just can’t see it.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I know you didn't direct this at me but my answer would be -
> Not at the moment no.
> Have I ever? Yes
> Would probably wish I hadn't after a period of time but they would have been toast by then.
> Can I think of scenarios where I would? Yes.
> 
> Based on your question would sending someone to He11 be beyond what you think you are capable of?



I would get literally sick of torturing someone after a few days no matter what they've done.  Maybe sooner.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> But my question is do you even care? Have you ever cared? If not, why do you keep inquiring about it as if you do? That's what is bizarre to me.




Because your thinking is dangerous.  We discussed it earlier.  Well, I tried to discuss it.  You just kind of went away.

I'm hoping anyone with any suspicions that religion is messed up is reading along and getting proper insight from your testimony.


----------



## oldfella1962

bullethead said:


> Well, Adam and his modern human looks and traits was VERY late to the game.
> 
> He is a perfect example of why the Biblical version of man's creation is flawed.



only about 100,000 years late to the game. Again some theories state maybe the (not quite human) hominids were lumped in with animals. Genesis doesn't list every single species so who knows? But just imagine if Adam & Eve never ate of the forbidden fruit. The garden would provide everything without much effort or hardship or even technical innovation & engineering to face the infinite number of challenges all humans faced back in the day and even today. They would never learn how to solve problems or face adversity.

But while the sinless garden people and their offspring lived on Easy Street (assuming nobody ever sinned by eating the forbidden fruit) the almost human neanderthals and homo erectus types would indeed be adapting & learning & fighting and all the other things required to stay alive. They would have to "live by the sweat of their brow" as Adam & his descendants ended up doing.

My point is if after many generations somebody messed up and got everyone kicked out of the garden, they wouldn't last too long without never having been challenged by constantly having to get stronger, smarter and more technologically advanced. That would make a cool book or movie! 

Also this about childbirth: according to Genesis because of becoming disobedient/sinful Eve would experience great pain in childbirth.  But the newborn baby human head was and still is pound-for-pound the largest head compared to any other species. By default all human births would be painful - for Eve or for any other woman. So if Adam & Eve wouldn't have sinned would god continue to make more people out of rib bones or what? 

Thus god must have know "sinless" living would never make it out of the starting gate! It failed literally on the first set of people. 

And the snake really has me confused: "from this day on you will eat dust & crawl on your belly." 
So how did the snake get around_ before_ god cursed him?


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> I don’t know how to do that quote thingy that you all do except quoting the whole comment but I would like to address some of the comments.
> 
> # 707 WaltL1 -  I now understand your concern.  The assumed doctrine has been breached.  Not necessarily.  The Catholic Church is a massive one room school house.  The same lesson given to kindergarteners is given to seniors.  The difference is not in the message but the reception of the information ( and I believe this addresses #720 ambush80 also).  Rules are initially given, just like a father raising a child.  The rules begin as “don’t do this”, “do that”, and there is not much explanation. . After practicing rules and protocol we learn to read between the lines,  To see the purpose of the rules and protocol.  Take the Ten Commandments.  (I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods before me. Don’t take the Lords name in vain etc. yields to reveal : Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind). ( Don’t kill, don’t steal etc yields to reveal: love your neighbor as yourself)
> 
> You see we all initially evaluate and judge the world based on physical senses and reason.  As we grow, we become aware of another sense that we call the Holy Spirit.  I’m hesitant to use that term because it carries with it preconceived notions.  It is an intuition, a reading between the lines.   As we begin to see the world with our spiritual sense, things open up quit a bit.  Just like a child becoming a teenager, those “do this” and “do that” statements still sort of apply but now with knowledge of why we should or should not do those things.  This maturation provides tremendous freedom and tolerance that the spiritually immature can’t understand.  Pope Francis addresses this child with a very  mature theology and many people just can’t see it.





> The Catholic Church is a massive one room school house.


Believe me I know. I spent years in one


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Their belief is what took them down a very destructive path. It's not a misinterpretation. Let's look at it again.
> 
> Proverbs 3
> 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
> 
> 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
> 
> That is exactly what they did. They trusted that they were......
> 
> You can try to pick and choose when people really acted under his direction and when they don't.


When people do what you’re talking about, misinterpretation is exactly what happens. I’m sorry that you’re blinded to the fact that people will self justify and abuse anything.


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> I don’t know how to do that quote thingy that you all do except quoting the whole comment but I would like to address some of the comments.
> 
> # 707 WaltL1 -  I now understand your concern.  The assumed doctrine has been breached.  Not necessarily.  The Catholic Church is a massive one room school house.  The same lesson given to kindergarteners is given to seniors.  The difference is not in the message but the reception of the information ( and I believe this addresses #720 ambush80 also).  Rules are initially given, just like a father raising a child.  The rules begin as “don’t do this”, “do that”, and there is not much explanation. . After practicing rules and protocol we learn to read between the lines,  To see the purpose of the rules and protocol.  Take the Ten Commandments.  (I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods before me. Don’t take the Lords name in vain etc. yields to reveal : Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind). ( Don’t kill, don’t steal etc yields to reveal: love your neighbor as yourself)
> 
> You see we all initially evaluate and judge the world based on physical senses and reason.  As we grow, we become aware of another sense that we call the Holy Spirit.  I’m hesitant to use that term because it carries with it preconceived notions.  It is an intuition, a reading between the lines.   As we begin to see the world with our spiritual sense, things open up quit a bit.  Just like a child becoming a teenager, those “do this” and “do that” statements still sort of apply but now with knowledge of why we should or should not do those things.  This maturation provides tremendous freedom and tolerance that the spiritually immature can’t understand.  Pope Francis addresses this child with a very  mature theology and many people just can’t see it.



I would say that the supernatural and superstitious claims of religious texts, in the perspective of human cultural and civilizational advancements, are akin to believing things like a child.  Likewise, they were useful to a child who doesn't know very much, but as the child and and the civilization  grow they should understand things in a more sophisticated and nuanced way.  If your spiritual sense allows you to understand the mythology and the utility of religious texts in a mature way then I would say more power to you.  If its still magic, then I would suggest more critical thinking.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> When people do what you’re talking about, misinterpretation is exactly what happens. I’m sorry that you’re blinded to the fact that people will self justify and abuse anything.



You just don't like the flavor they do.  That's the problem with trying to claim that one flavor is superior.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Because your thinking is dangerous.  We discussed it earlier.  Well, I tried to discuss it.  You just kind of went away.
> 
> I'm hoping anyone with any suspicions that religion is messed up is reading along and getting proper insight from your testimony.



I argued that you were using excessively broad blanket assessments, and including me into it. Which you finally agreed to.

Now it seems like you are right back to doing it again. 

And I must ask you again, what have I (individually) said that you find dangerous?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I argued that you were using excessively broad blanket assessments, and including me into it. Which you finally agreed to.
> 
> Now it seems like you are right back to doing it again.
> 
> And I must ask you again, what have I (individually) said that you find dangerous?



If you believe that God communicates directly to you in a way that only you know about and there's not a rational argument that someone can use to make you not believe it then that's inherently dangerous.  It's hard for you to see because we're talking about you.  Apply the same thinking to a guy named Kenji, Mustafa, or Induku.  

"If Induku believes that God communicates directly to him in a way that only he knows about and there's not a rational argument that someone can use to make Induku not believe it then that's inherently dangerous".  Get it now?  What if God tells Induku to do something you don't agree with? How are you gonna talk him out of it?  It might take a bullet.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> If you believe that God communicates directly to you in a way that only you know about and there's not a rational argument that someone can use to make you not believe it then that's inherently dangerous.  It's hard for you to see because we're talking about you.  Apply the same thinking to a guy named Kenji, Mustafa, or Induku.
> 
> "If Induku believes that God communicates directly to him in a way that only he knows about and there's not a rational argument that someone can use to make Induku not believe it then that's inherently dangerous".  Get it now?  What if God tells Induku to do something you don't agree with? How are you gonna talk him out of it?  It might take a bullet.



I don't think you meant what you said, at least I hope not, it might be termed "cause".


----------



## Day trip

ambush80 said:


> I would say that the supernatural and superstitious claims of religious texts, in the perspective of human cultural and civilizational advancements, is akin to believing things like a child.  Likewise, they were useful to a child who doesn't know very much, but as the child and and the civilization  grow they should understand things in a more sophisticated and nuanced way.  If your spiritual sense allows you to understand the mythology and the utility of religious texts in a mature way then I would say more power to you.  If its still magic, then I would suggest more critical thinking.



Absolutely!  No magic


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> I don't think you meant what you said, at least I hope not, it might be termed "cause".



Fine.  I'm not afraid of telling the truth.

"There are some propositions that are so dangerous that people who believe them should be killed".
    --Sam Harris

If I had known what Muhammad Atta was up to I would have pulled the trigger myself.


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> Absolutely!  No magic




How about the resurrection of Jesus?  Real magic or real metaphor?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Fine.  I'm not afraid of telling the truth.
> 
> "There are some propositions that are so dangerous that people who believe them should be killed".
> --Sam Harris
> 
> If I had known what Muhammad Atta was up to I would have pulled the trigger myself.



I think your paranoia may be the real danger here.
Sounds like you may be the loose cannon and the itchy trigger finger.


----------



## Jack Ryan

Why even discuss this? Do you guys think you deciding if any  one is going to heaven or not?

You better hope God has a sense of humor and is just laughing and not asking Himself just who do these people THINK they are.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> You just don't like the flavor they do.  That's the problem with trying to claim that one flavor is superior.



No. Flavor has nothing to do with misinterpretation. If that’s what those scriptures mean, why isn’t all of Christianity flying planes into buildings or throwing gays from the roof top??

If someone is convinced that that’s what those scriptures mean, they should self-check their self  to make sure theyre not a terrorist, too.


----------



## WaltL1

Jack Ryan said:


> Why even discuss this? Do you guys think you deciding if any  one is going to heaven or not?
> 
> You better hope God has a sense of humor and is just laughing and not asking Himself just who do these people THINK they are.





> Why even discuss this?


Why not discuss it?

And nice Garand. Mine is my favorite of all my guns.


----------



## Day trip

ambush80 said:


> How about the resurrection of Jesus?  Real magic or real metaphor?



Well let’s get straight to the meat, no easy ones to start with?  

There are many things that are beyond me.  MANY!  And those things I let sit on the shelf until something draws them out.  I make no decision on them.  
For this particular matter which is so “in you face” for a believer I’ve been forced to make a decision that I continue to hold until later.  

I believe the resurrection is real, but literal and real are two different things.  I’m honestly scared to say it is not literal  because I have firmly believed things before that turned out different.  But when I find myself trying to believe a dead body was reanimated after three days, I cannot with any honesty say that I soundly believe it.  So I decide, do I need to believe it?  Well, no.  Who is Jesus?  The Word.  
In the beginning was the Word,
The Word was with God 
And the Word was God. 

You see, the original Greek text used Logos for Word, the logos, the logic, the plan, for all of creation.  (As opposed to lexis which is the written or oral word). 

Jesus is truth perfected in the limits of human form.  When he died, truth died.  Falsely accused, falsely condemned and falsely punished with death.  The resurrection is truth, the Word, being resurrected into the world.  Remember when Jesus died there was an eclipse, an earthquake? It’s like the world went nuts!   Notice how the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him, Mary Magdalene did not recognize him at the tomb.  When he came to the apostles in the locked room, the response was terrible fear.  In each case Jesus was not recognized until he revealed himself through truth.   Was it Jesus the man, body and all?  I cannot say but it was certainly Christ, the truth who was resurrected.  

I hope I’m not side stepping too much, just being honest.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> Well let’s get straight to the meat, no easy ones to start with?
> 
> There are many things that are beyond me.  MANY!  And those things I let sit on the shelf until something draws them out.  I make no decision on them.
> For this particular matter which is so “in you face” for a believer I’ve been forced to make a decision that I continue to hold until later.
> 
> I believe the resurrection is real, but literal and real are two different things.  I’m honestly scared to say it is not literal  because I have firmly believed things before that turned out different.  But when I find myself trying to believe a dead body was reanimated after three days, I cannot with any honesty say that I soundly believe it.  So I decide, do I need to believe it?  Well, no.  Who is Jesus?  The Word.
> In the beginning was the Word,
> The Word was with God
> And the Word was God.
> 
> You see, the original Greek text used Logos for Word, the logos, the logic, the plan, for all of creation.  (As opposed to lexis which is the written or oral word).
> 
> Jesus is truth perfected in the limits of human form.  When he died, truth died.  Falsely accused, falsely condemned and falsely punished with death.  The resurrection is truth, the Word, being resurrected into the world.  Remember when Jesus died there was an eclipse, an earthquake? It’s like the world went nuts!   Notice how the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him, Mary Magdalene did not recognize him at the tomb.  When he came to the apostles in the locked room, the response was terrible fear.  In each case Jesus was not recognized until he revealed himself through truth.   Was it Jesus the man, body and all?  I cannot say but it was certainly Christ, the truth who was resurrected.
> 
> I hope I’m not side stepping too much, just being honest.



One problem here is that Jesus supposed death happened during Passover. Passover happens during a Full Moon. Full Moons have lunar eclipses. Jesus supposedly died during the day when a solar eclipse would have happened. No solar eclipses were ever recorded for that year.


----------



## Day trip

bullethead said:


> One problem here is that Jesus supposed death happened during Passover. Passover happens during a Full Moon. Full Moons have lunar eclipses. Jesus supposedly died during the day when a solar eclipse would have happened. No solar eclipses were ever recorded for that year.



Thank you, that makes it a little bit easier for me.  But I’ll leave it on the shelf.


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> Well let’s get straight to the meat, no easy ones to start with?
> 
> There are many things that are beyond me.  MANY!  And those things I let sit on the shelf until something draws them out.  I make no decision on them.
> For this particular matter which is so “in you face” for a believer I’ve been forced to make a decision that I continue to hold until later.
> 
> I believe the resurrection is real, but literal and real are two different things.  I’m honestly scared to say it is not literal  because I have firmly believed things before that turned out different.  But when I find myself trying to believe a dead body was reanimated after three days, I cannot with any honesty say that I soundly believe it.  So I decide, do I need to believe it?  Well, no.  Who is Jesus?  The Word.
> In the beginning was the Word,
> The Word was with God
> And the Word was God.
> 
> You see, the original Greek text used Logos for Word, the logos, the logic, the plan, for all of creation.  (As opposed to lexis which is the written or oral word).
> 
> Jesus is truth perfected in the limits of human form.  When he died, truth died.  Falsely accused, falsely condemned and falsely punished with death.  The resurrection is truth, the Word, being resurrected into the world.  Remember when Jesus died there was an eclipse, an earthquake? It’s like the world went nuts!   Notice how the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him, Mary Magdalene did not recognize him at the tomb.  When he came to the apostles in the locked room, the response was terrible fear.  In each case Jesus was not recognized until he revealed himself through truth.   Was it Jesus the man, body and all?  I cannot say but it was certainly Christ, the truth who was resurrected.
> 
> I hope I’m not side stepping too much, just being honest.



Thank you.  Really, thank you for your honest answer.  

Why beat around the burning bush, as it were?

Are you familiar with Jordan Peterson?  I started a thread about him.  I like how he approaches religious mythology.  I wish he didn't focus solely on Christianity but I suppose it's because he calls himself a Christian.  Your take on Christianity reminds me of his and I'm impressed by both of you.  

Take a peek at the Peterson thread.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> One problem here is that Jesus supposed death happened during Passover. Passover happens during a Full Moon. Full Moons have lunar eclipses. Jesus supposedly died during the day when a solar eclipse would have happened. No solar eclipses were ever recorded for that year.



Luke 23: 44 & 45 does


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Luke 23: 44 & 45 does



Thank you for showing us examples of things happening no where else outside of the bible despite the bible's claims that it did.
Let's call this one The Fiction of Luke.


----------



## Day trip

ambush80 said:


> Thank you.  Really, thank you for your honest answer.
> 
> Why beat around the burning bush, as it were?
> 
> Are you familiar with Jordan Peterson?  I started a thread about him.  I like how he approaches religious mythology.  I wish he didn't focus solely on Christianity but I suppose it's because he calls himself a Christian.  Your take on Christianity reminds me of his and I'm impressed by both of you.
> 
> Take a peek at the Peterson thread.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.



Thank you too, quite a compliment! .  I don’t call myself anything but I wholly believe in God.   I’ll look at the thread.


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> Thank you too, quite a compliment! .  I don’t call myself anything but I wholly believe in God.   I’ll look at the thread.



I re-read through the Peterson thread and I feel that at times I might have seemed flippant with my line of questioning.  I hope you'll see passed that and to the heart of the matter that I was trying to explore.  

Labels are often woefully inept at capturing the entirety of what they try to describe, especially religious labels, but they're useful to at least get a foothold on a concept.  With that in mind, would it be accurate enough to say that you're a Deist, and if so, how would you characterize God?  That's extremely vague but I think your immediate visceral response to the question will get the ball rolling.

Glad to have you involved in the conversation!


----------



## Day trip

ambush80 said:


> I re-read through the Peterson thread and I feel that at times I might have seemed flippant with my line of questioning.  I hope you'll see passed that and to the heart of the matter that I was trying to explore.
> 
> Labels are often woefully inept at capturing the entirety of what they try to describe, especially religious labels, but they're useful to at least get a foothold on a concept.  With that in mind, would it be accurate enough to say that you're a Deist, and if so, how would you characterize God?  That's extremely vague but I think your immediate visceral response to the question will get the ball rolling.
> 
> Glad to have you involved in the conversation!



Again, thanks.  I’m enjoying the conversations very much.  
I’ll give you a brief history.  
Cradle Catholic.  Did everything I was supposed to until 18.  It mostly seemed pointless and ridiculous.  I felt like they weren’t telling me the whole story so I left.  I don’t label myself as anything but you would have likely considered me an atheist/agnostic during that time.  
I graduated college, had a beautiful wife, owned my own success business, nice house etc.  The American dream.  All I had to do was show up for the next 30 years and my life would, by most standards be considered a huge success.  And I was MISERABLE.  
Began reading philosophy, Buddhism, hinduism, even some of the Koran.  My mind changed dramatically and I decided to go back to the Bible.  Now, and only now did things start to make sense.  I followed no rules, I read and thought.  I discovered that the Bible is the most amazing collection of books ever written IF read properly.  How do I know I’m right?  Everything belongs!  


So, now I still attend Mass every Sunday, lead our churches bible study group and really CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored off a lot of hard cores Catholics. 

So, how would I characterize God?  That’s easy, God IS.

Want more?  God is love and truth. 

Still want more?  Me too!  I’ll be glad to walk with you through it all.  I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything except the true self.  Working together we can all really grow.


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> Again, thanks.  I’m enjoying the conversations very much.
> I’ll give you a brief history.
> Cradle Catholic.  Did everything I was supposed to until 18.  It mostly seemed pointless and ridiculous.  I felt like they weren’t telling me the whole story so I left.  I don’t label myself as anything but you would have likely considered me an atheist/agnostic during that time.
> I graduated college, had a beautiful wife, owned my own success business, nice house etc.  The American dream.  All I had to do was show up for the next 30 years and my life would, by most standards be considered a huge success.  And I was MISERABLE.
> Began reading philosophy, Buddhism, hinduism, even some of the Koran.  My mind changed dramatically and I decided to go back to the Bible.  Now, and only now did things start to make sense.  I followed no rules, I read and thought.  I discovered that the Bible is the most amazing collection of books ever written IF read properly.  How do I know I’m right?  Everything belongs!
> 
> 
> So, now I still attend Mass every Sunday, lead our churches bible study group and really CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored off a lot of hard cores Catholics.
> 
> So, how would I characterize God?  That’s easy, God IS.
> 
> Want more?  God is love and truth.
> 
> Still want more?  Me too!  I’ll be glad to walk with you through it all.  I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything except the true self.  Working together we can all really grow.



Thanks for sharing your story.  There's allot there that I'm curious to know about but the first thing that comes to mind is why were you miserable?


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> Again, thanks.  I’m enjoying the conversations very much.
> I’ll give you a brief history.
> Cradle Catholic.  Did everything I was supposed to until 18.  It mostly seemed pointless and ridiculous.  I felt like they weren’t telling me the whole story so I left.  I don’t label myself as anything but you would have likely considered me an atheist/agnostic during that time.
> I graduated college, had a beautiful wife, owned my own success business, nice house etc.  The American dream.  All I had to do was show up for the next 30 years and my life would, by most standards be considered a huge success.  And I was MISERABLE.
> Began reading philosophy, Buddhism, hinduism, even some of the Koran.  My mind changed dramatically and I decided to go back to the Bible.  Now, and only now did things start to make sense.  I followed no rules, I read and thought.  I discovered that the Bible is the most amazing collection of books ever written IF read properly.  How do I know I’m right?  Everything belongs!
> 
> 
> So, now I still attend Mass every Sunday, lead our churches bible study group and really CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored off a lot of hard cores Catholics.
> 
> So, how would I characterize God?  That’s easy, God IS.
> 
> Want more?  God is love and truth.
> 
> Still want more?  Me too!  I’ll be glad to walk with you through it all.  I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything except the true self.  Working together we can all really grow.



Did you bring any of the philosophies from your explorations into Eastern religions to your rediscovered Christianity?


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> Again, thanks.  I’m enjoying the conversations very much.
> I’ll give you a brief history.
> Cradle Catholic.  Did everything I was supposed to until 18.  It mostly seemed pointless and ridiculous.  I felt like they weren’t telling me the whole story so I left.  I don’t label myself as anything but you would have likely considered me an atheist/agnostic during that time.
> I graduated college, had a beautiful wife, owned my own success business, nice house etc.  The American dream.  All I had to do was show up for the next 30 years and my life would, by most standards be considered a huge success.  And I was MISERABLE.
> Began reading philosophy, Buddhism, hinduism, even some of the Koran.  My mind changed dramatically and I decided to go back to the Bible.  Now, and only now did things start to make sense.  I followed no rules, I read and thought.  I discovered that the Bible is the most amazing collection of books ever written IF read properly.  How do I know I’m right?  Everything belongs!
> 
> 
> So, now I still attend Mass every Sunday, lead our churches bible study group and really CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored off a lot of hard cores Catholics.
> 
> So, how would I characterize God?  That’s easy, God IS.
> 
> Want more?  God is love and truth.
> 
> Still want more?  Me too!  I’ll be glad to walk with you through it all.  I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything except the true self.  Working together we can all really grow.



What do you make of the similarities between the Koran and the Bible?


----------



## Day trip

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for sharing your story.  There's allot there that I'm curious to know about but the first thing that comes to mind is why were you miserable?



I was miserable because I was a Diesel engine running on sugar water.  Worldly success and riches do not satisfy.  It’s hard to believe unless you’ve had it all.  They at best give us simple pleasures which is good, at worst become distractions and  coping mechanism and then addictions.  Within the limit of words, my Spirit was starving, craving reconciliation.  Or if you will allow me, God was calling me.


----------



## Day trip

ambush80 said:


> Did you bring any of the philosophies from your explorations into Eastern religions to your rediscovered Christianity?



Certainly, Gandi gave me the confidence to speak more boldly, Lao Tsu’s Taoism is difficult but a great read for learning to walk your own path. 

My biggest initial influence was Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Profession of a Savoyard Vicar and Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essays (To Divinity Students and American Scholar - basically highlighted every sentence in this essay- please read it if you can) 


And the language of Koran is very distracting to me.  I certainly understand how a quick read could cause people to be violent. Didn’t spend much time here.


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> I was miserable because I was a Diesel engine running on sugar water.  Worldly success and riches do not satisfy.  It’s hard to believe unless you’ve had it all.  They at best give us simple pleasures which is good, at worst become distractions and  coping mechanism and then addictions.  Within the limit of words, my Spirit was starving, craving reconciliation.  Or if you will allow me, God was calling me.




I'm lucky in that I've so far avoided the types of traumatic experiences that often drive people to existential dilemmas.  I've never been rich enough to entertain my worst desires, I've never been too, too close to death and I've never been to prison.  I can't remember when or how I quit being a malcontent.  I'm not saying that's what you were, I'm saying that's what I was when life seemed so hard and so empty.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> When people do what you’re talking about, misinterpretation is exactly what happens. I’m sorry that you’re blinded to the fact that people will self justify and abuse anything.



So any time someone kills at the behest of god that is a misinterpretation? That's not what the bible says. The bible is chock full of people murdering on command. In fact that was how god chose to test the faith of your patriarch.


----------



## atlashunter

Jack Ryan said:


> Why even discuss this? Do you guys think you deciding if any  one is going to heaven or not?
> 
> You better hope God has a sense of humor and is just laughing and not asking Himself just who do these people THINK they are.



If you think saying what determines a person's fate in an afterlife is equivalent to making the decision then your issue is with the bible not with atheists. The kid didn't ask the pope to send his father to heaven. He asked if he was in heaven.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> So any time someone kills at the behest of god that is a misinterpretation? That's not what the bible says. The bible is chock full of people murdering on command. In fact that was how god chose to test the faith of your patriarch.



Yes, it’s misinterpreted and misunderstood. Obviously, the terrorist are not the only ones that do that. 

I’m quite sure that you can read it, quote it, dissect it, etc. but that’s not the same as keeping it in context and having a spiritual understanding of it. If you did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Thank you for showing us examples of things happening no where else outside of the bible despite the bible's claims that it did.
> Let's call this one The Fiction of Luke.


Are you 100% positive of either statement???
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/how-often-solar-eclipse.html



bullethead said:


> No solar eclipses were ever recorded for that year.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Are you 100% positive of either statement???
> https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/how-often-solar-eclipse.html



As sure as I am that the Earth did not tremble, that graves did not burst wide open, that saints were not raised, and that the dead did not go to the holy city and appear to "many people".

NOBODY outside of the bible recorded such monumental events. Why?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Are you 100% positive of either statement???
> https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/how-often-solar-eclipse.html



A Solar eclipse lasts about 7 minutes.
Are you sticking with the bibles version that there was total darkness for 3 hours?



These are not my words but you can get a feel for what is being said.
"

THE DARKNESS DURING THE CRUCIFIXION

Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.

Introduction and the apology

In these days of the Laodicean church age (see Revelation 3:14-22) the authority of the Bible has dwindled to nothing, even in the eyes of Christians. The authority of the Holy Writ has, in them, been replaced by the “great” men of this era: Moody, Spurgeon, Henry, Swindoll, Graham, Dobson, Copeland, and the like. The authority of the Holy Bible has been replaced by the authority of institutions such as Moody, Liberty, Bob Jones, etc. Finally, the authority of the Holy Bible has been replaced by the authorities of science, psychology, psychiatry, the legal system, human governments and corrupt government officials. The honor and obedience which is due God is given to such as these. Verily it is the beginning of the famine of Amos 8:11, the famine for the hearing of the words of the Lord.

And so it is that I take keyboard in hand and construct an apology about the three hours of darkness that lasted while Jesus Christ hung on the cross. I do so risking the charge that I view these secular authorities as equal or greater than the Bible; and that I'm trying to use them to “prove the Bible.” If I believed the Bible could be proven by such “evidence,” the charge is well taken, but I believe the Bible first, and even if there were no corroborating testimony from other sources, I would still believe it. What proof can I offer against the charge? I am a geocentrist knowing full well that a proof for geocentricity is every bit as impossible to obtain (outside of the Scriptures) than proof for heliocentrism. Beyond that I'm fulfilling what Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 3:11, knowing full well that I'll never know everything. In summary, there's nothing wrong with reasoning men into the truth of the knowledge of God the Father and his only begotten Son, Jesus. Let us remember who it was who said: “Come, let us reason together,” (Isaiah 1:18); and that Paul reasoned with Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 18:4, 19; 24:25; etc.) about the salvation of Jesus Christ.

The Biblical account

That there was a darkness lasting three hours during the crucifixion is recorded in three of the Gospels. They read as follows:

Matthew 27:45CensoredNow from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33CensoredAnd when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48CensoredAnd it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.Censored
45CensoredAnd the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
46CensoredAnd when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
47CensoredNow when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.
48CensoredAnd all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

We see then that there were three hours of darkness which occurred while Jesus Christ hung on the cross. The time was from noon until 3:00 P.M. According to the account in Luke, the darkness and the earthquake that ended it (Matthew 27:54) were so impressive that the centurion in charge of the crucifixion glorified God, and all the people showed signs of remorse and fear.

An eclipse?

In true humanist style, men have proposed a natural cause for this darkness. No natural cause is indicated by the text, particularly the coincidence of the end of the darkness and the earthquake. The most common naturalistic explanation is that the darkness was caused by an eclipse of the sun.

This speculation is too easy to refute. The passover, which is the time when Jesus was crucified, occurs at full moon, when the earth is between the moon and the sun. An eclipse of the sun can only occur when the moon is between the earth and the sun. Yet I've even seen astronomers try to date the eclipse by computing when such an eclipse might be visible at Jerusalem.

The final nail in the eclipse's coffin is that a naturally occurring eclipse of the sun can last at most about seven and a half minutes, a far, far cry from three hours. One may, of course, charge the Bible with an error, that it exaggerated the duration of the eclipse, and such has been done by some, but reason says it cannot be an eclipse of the sun for such would have been a miracle greater than Joshua's long day or Hezekiah's sign, when the sun went back 10 degrees (lengthening that day by forty minutes). For this to have been an eclipse of the sun, the moon would have to perform a quantum jump of half a million miles, stop its orbital motion, and stay in front of the sun for three hours. Then it had to jump back to where it should have been had it never jumped to cover the sun."


----------



## oldfella1962

bullethead said:


> As sure as I am that the Earth did not tremble, that graves did not burst wide open, that saints were not raised, and that the dead did not go to the holy city and appear to "many people".
> 
> NOBODY outside of the bible recorded such monumental events. Why?



yeah I think a wide-scale "Night Of the Living Dead" scenario (except with peaceful, coherent zombies) would be newsworthy in any society whether ancient or current. 

That is a goalpost that can be moved however with the "metaphoric versus literal" strategy. Maybe the risen dead were god-inspired visions or something. 
Man I wish I were a fly on the wall back then.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> A Solar eclipse lasts about 7 minutes.
> Are you sticking with the bibles version that there was total darkness for 3 hours?
> 
> 
> 
> These are not my words but you can get a feel for what is being said.
> "
> 
> THE DARKNESS DURING THE CRUCIFIXION
> 
> Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.
> 
> Introduction and the apology
> 
> In these days of the Laodicean church age (see Revelation 3:14-22) the authority of the Bible has dwindled to nothing, even in the eyes of Christians. The authority of the Holy Writ has, in them, been replaced by the “great” men of this era: Moody, Spurgeon, Henry, Swindoll, Graham, Dobson, Copeland, and the like. The authority of the Holy Bible has been replaced by the authority of institutions such as Moody, Liberty, Bob Jones, etc. Finally, the authority of the Holy Bible has been replaced by the authorities of science, psychology, psychiatry, the legal system, human governments and corrupt government officials. The honor and obedience which is due God is given to such as these. Verily it is the beginning of the famine of Amos 8:11, the famine for the hearing of the words of the Lord.
> 
> And so it is that I take keyboard in hand and construct an apology about the three hours of darkness that lasted while Jesus Christ hung on the cross. I do so risking the charge that I view these secular authorities as equal or greater than the Bible; and that I'm trying to use them to “prove the Bible.” If I believed the Bible could be proven by such “evidence,” the charge is well taken, but I believe the Bible first, and even if there were no corroborating testimony from other sources, I would still believe it. What proof can I offer against the charge? I am a geocentrist knowing full well that a proof for geocentricity is every bit as impossible to obtain (outside of the Scriptures) than proof for heliocentrism. Beyond that I'm fulfilling what Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 3:11, knowing full well that I'll never know everything. In summary, there's nothing wrong with reasoning men into the truth of the knowledge of God the Father and his only begotten Son, Jesus. Let us remember who it was who said: “Come, let us reason together,” (Isaiah 1:18); and that Paul reasoned with Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 18:4, 19; 24:25; etc.) about the salvation of Jesus Christ.
> 
> The Biblical account
> 
> That there was a darkness lasting three hours during the crucifixion is recorded in three of the Gospels. They read as follows:
> 
> Matthew 27:45CensoredNow from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
> 
> Mark 15:33CensoredAnd when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
> 
> Luke 23:44-48CensoredAnd it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.Censored
> 45CensoredAnd the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
> 46CensoredAnd when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
> 47CensoredNow when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.
> 48CensoredAnd all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.
> 
> We see then that there were three hours of darkness which occurred while Jesus Christ hung on the cross. The time was from noon until 3:00 P.M. According to the account in Luke, the darkness and the earthquake that ended it (Matthew 27:54) were so impressive that the centurion in charge of the crucifixion glorified God, and all the people showed signs of remorse and fear.
> 
> An eclipse?
> 
> In true humanist style, men have proposed a natural cause for this darkness. No natural cause is indicated by the text, particularly the coincidence of the end of the darkness and the earthquake. The most common naturalistic explanation is that the darkness was caused by an eclipse of the sun.
> 
> This speculation is too easy to refute. The passover, which is the time when Jesus was crucified, occurs at full moon, when the earth is between the moon and the sun. An eclipse of the sun can only occur when the moon is between the earth and the sun. Yet I've even seen astronomers try to date the eclipse by computing when such an eclipse might be visible at Jerusalem.
> 
> The final nail in the eclipse's coffin is that a naturally occurring eclipse of the sun can last at most about seven and a half minutes, a far, far cry from three hours. One may, of course, charge the Bible with an error, that it exaggerated the duration of the eclipse, and such has been done by some, but reason says it cannot be an eclipse of the sun for such would have been a miracle greater than Joshua's long day or Hezekiah's sign, when the sun went back 10 degrees (lengthening that day by forty minutes). For this to have been an eclipse of the sun, the moon would have to perform a quantum jump of half a million miles, stop its orbital motion, and stay in front of the sun for three hours. Then it had to jump back to where it should have been had it never jumped to cover the sun."


You’re saying that one didn’t happen that year. Nasa says otherwise. It happens every year. Including that year. Maybe they didn’t record every eclipse back then???? At least that year, it seems. Well, except for Luke, he got it closer than your source.


----------



## j_seph

Day trip said:


> Again, thanks.  I’m enjoying the conversations very much.
> I’ll give you a brief history.
> Cradle Catholic.  Did everything I was supposed to until 18.  It mostly seemed pointless and ridiculous.  I felt like they weren’t telling me the whole story so I left.  I don’t label myself as anything but you would have likely considered me an atheist/agnostic during that time.
> I graduated college, had a beautiful wife, owned my own success business, nice house etc.  The American dream.  All I had to do was show up for the next 30 years and my life would, by most standards be considered a huge success.  And I was MISERABLE.
> Began reading philosophy, Buddhism, hinduism, even some of the Koran.  My mind changed dramatically and I decided to go back to the Bible.  Now, and only now did things start to make sense.  I followed no rules, I read and thought.  I discovered that the Bible is the most amazing collection of books ever written IF read properly.  How do I know I’m right?  Everything belongs!
> 
> 
> So, now I still attend Mass every Sunday, lead our churches bible study group and really CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored off a lot of hard cores Catholics.
> 
> So, how would I characterize God?  That’s easy, God IS.
> 
> Want more?  God is love and truth.
> 
> Still want more?  Me too!  I’ll be glad to walk with you through it all.  I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything except the true self.  Working together we can all really grow.


Great testimony.
My wife and I have a guy we went to school with. She actually grew up with him and his family as youngsters in church. As far as she knew he had been saved as a youngster. He owns several businesses now and we got to talk to him a month ago. After an hour of us, another, and him talking and crying it was amazing. He is 48 years old now and he got saved 2 years ago. He was very well off and worth not a million but several millions. He got all his riches the wrong way, was involved with some big time mafia folks. He hid in plain sight by playing in church band, singing at church. Local LEO would not mess with him because his hads were so deep in some evil places. He lost his wife, every penny he had, moved in with family even proclaimed there was no God. Hard to believe as similar to Atlas he came from a family full of preachers and also a well known Gospel group. He was in his bedroom, with a gun in his hand to his head. He said he told a God he did not believe in, if you do exist there is no way you love me. Only person that had ever loved him was his mom and granny. Where he was staying was an old house that had one of these narrow steep stairwells to 2nd floor. They had a little girl that was scared of him, this was late at night when his door cracked open and she stuck her head in the door and said good night, I love you. He dropped the gun and said it reminded him of one of those movies he heard a voice say How dare you say I do not Love you. Next morning he got up and felt as though he was having a heart attack and they called a a lady to come take him to hospital. She was led that he was not having a heart attack but something else. She actually drove him to church where they had a revival going on that a preacher they knew was doing the revival. He said I am not going in there, I am having a heart attack, she told him I do not believe you are and if you are I am going to feel really bad. As he was basically pushed in they ended up singing his moms favorite song, then his grandmothers favorite song, and another. All songs his family had written that you just cannot go out and get the music for them. He ended up getting saved that morning, he is now as successful as before. Owns several businesses, maybe not as rich in money as before but has something worth more than silver or Gold. All through God and the power of prayer

My wifes mother and dad prayed for her for many years even as she was grown and in a horrible marriage. She went through pretty much rock bottom as I was going through my heavy trials as well. We ended up together after going through 12 years of school together, never hardly speaking through school. Funny thing is her aunt asked how we met and I told her 1st grade. She put her hand over her mouth and said, you are the one my sister talked about. See when we did valentines in grade school her mom would pick out the little card that would go to me. 

Like many others until you have experienced Gods grace and blessings, praised him in the good and the bad times you will probably never understand how we cannot be persuaded that there is no God.


----------



## Day trip

j_seph said:


> Great testimony.
> My wife and I have a guy we went to school with. She actually grew up with him and his family as youngsters in church. As far as she knew he had been saved as a youngster. He owns several businesses now and we got to talk to him a month ago. After an hour of us, another, and him talking and crying it was amazing. He is 48 years old now and he got saved 2 years ago. He was very well off and worth not a million but several millions. He got all his riches the wrong way, was involved with some big time mafia folks. He hid in plain sight by playing in church band, singing at church. Local LEO would not mess with him because his hads were so deep in some evil places. He lost his wife, every penny he had, moved in with family even proclaimed there was no God. Hard to believe as similar to Atlas he came from a family full of preachers and also a well known Gospel group. He was in his bedroom, with a gun in his hand to his head. He said he told a God he did not believe in, if you do exist there is no way you love me. Only person that had ever loved him was his mom and granny. Where he was staying was an old house that had one of these narrow steep stairwells to 2nd floor. They had a little girl that was scared of him, this was late at night when his door cracked open and she stuck her head in the door and said good night, I love you. He dropped the gun and said it reminded him of one of those movies he heard a voice say How dare you say I do not Love you. Next morning he got up and felt as though he was having a heart attack and they called a a lady to come take him to hospital. She was led that he was not having a heart attack but something else. She actually drove him to church where they had a revival going on that a preacher they knew was doing the revival. He said I am not going in there, I am having a heart attack, she told him I do not believe you are and if you are I am going to feel really bad. As he was basically pushed in they ended up singing his moms favorite song, then his grandmothers favorite song, and another. All songs his family had written that you just cannot go out and get the music for them. He ended up getting saved that morning, he is now as successful as before. Owns several businesses, maybe not as rich in money as before but has something worth more than silver or Gold. All through God and the power of prayer
> 
> My wifes mother and dad prayed for her for many years even as she was grown and in a horrible marriage. She went through pretty much rock bottom as I was going through my heavy trials as well. We ended up together after going through 12 years of school together, never hardly speaking through school. Funny thing is her aunt asked how we met and I told her 1st grade. She put her hand over her mouth and said, you are the one my sister talked about. See when we did valentines in grade school her mom would pick out the little card that would go to me.
> 
> Like many others until you have experienced Gods grace and blessings, praised him in the good and the bad times you will probably never understand how we cannot be persuaded that there is no God.




Awesome!  I have questions but would rather let this just permeate for a while.


----------



## ambush80

Praising in the good times and bad times covers allot of territory.  It doesn't prove to you what's really going on.  It does give you a way to rationalize, though.

Anyway, I'm less inclined to care what people think caused things to happen in their personal lives than I used to.


----------



## oldfella1962

ambush80 said:


> Praising in the good times and bad times covers allot of territory.  It doesn't prove to you what's really going on.  It does give you a way to rationalize, though.
> 
> Anyway, I'm less inclined to care what people think caused things to happen in their personal lives than I used to.



good point - there can be many interrelated causes and no way to isolate exactly what happened. Much of it could be opinion or interpretation.


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> good point - there can be many interrelated causes and no way to isolate exactly what happened. Much of it could be opinion or interpretation.



It's a lens to view the world that gives purpose to things that don't seem to have one.  When a natural explanation doesn't seem available I'd rather just say "I don't know why".  It seems the most rational position to take.


----------



## oldfella1962

ambush80 said:


> It's a lens to view the world that gives purpose to things that don't seem to have one.  When a natural explanation doesn't seem available I'd rather just say "I don't know why".  It seems the most rational position to take.



interesting comment about "a rational position" & interpretation. Here's a true story (my personal experience) about interpretation based on a total lack of rational thought AKA mental illness & how it can relate to religious content:

about nine months ago my wife had an "out of the blue" complete break from reality (psychosis) during our vacation that required a month or so in a mental institution. It started out with a gradual but steady change in personality over a few weeks then peaked with the full-blown delusions then hallucinations. Anyway just before being institutionalized she was seeing "signs from god" everywhere among her other delusions. Coming back from Atlanta airport on the freeway at night (a trip I've made countless times) she would think that car tail-lights were angels leading us back home. I tied to explain that the sign saying I-20 EAST leads us back home, but she wasn't having it. Then she was interpreting song lyrics on the CD as god (funneled through the singers of course) speaking to her. You get the idea. The next day when I took her to our hospital's mental health section she was hallucinating that she was Jesus and telling the staff that everything would be okay and she was blessing them and calling them her children. Then she would do a 180 and say she was the devil and was going to gouge out my eyes and eat them, then kill me. 

After it was all said & done I told the mental health staff that I honestly thought it was a Hollywood gimmick that crazy people would think they were god or the devil (or see god or the devil) but they said it's more common than you think. There is something deep in some people's subconscious and when they have a "break from reality" and lose their personality & don't know who they are anymore they take it to the next level and become god or the devil or both. 

Side-note my wife & I had just started attending church after many years of non-attendance a couple of months after she returned from a trip to visit her mom (who also recently started attending church after a long break and thus encouraged my wife to start attending again). So maybe two months of church attendance had seeped into my wife's subconscious about the time of her breakdown - we'll never know I guess.


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> interesting comment about "a rational position" & interpretation. Here's a true story (my personal experience) about interpretation based on a total lack of rational thought AKA mental illness & how it can relate to religious content:
> 
> about nine months ago my wife had an "out of the blue" complete break from reality (psychosis) during our vacation that required a month or so in a mental institution. It started out with a gradual but steady change in personality over a few weeks then peaked with the full-blown delusions then hallucinations. Anyway just before being institutionalized she was seeing "signs from god" everywhere among her other delusions. Coming back from Atlanta airport on the freeway at night (a trip I've made countless times) she would think that car tail-lights were angels leading us back home. I tied to explain that the sign saying I-20 EAST leads us back home, but she wasn't having it. Then she was interpreting song lyrics on the CD as god (funneled through the singers of course) speaking to her. You get the idea. The next day when I took her to our hospital's mental health section she was hallucinating that she was Jesus and telling the staff that everything would be okay and she was blessing them and calling them her children. Then she would do a 180 and say she was the devil and was going to gouge out my eyes and eat them, then kill me.
> 
> After it was all said & done I told the mental health staff that I honestly thought it was a Hollywood gimmick that crazy people would think they were god or the devil (or see god or the devil) but they said it's more common than you think. There is something deep in some people's subconscious and when they have a "break from reality" and lose their personality & don't know who they are anymore they take it to the next level and become god or the devil or both.
> 
> Side-note my wife & I had just started attending church after many years of non-attendance a couple of months after she returned from a trip to visit her mom (who also recently started attending church after a long break and thus encouraged my wife to start attending again). So maybe two months of church attendance had seeped into my wife's subconscious about the time of her breakdown - we'll never know I guess.



I'm sorry for the hardships you and your wife are going through.  I hope you will both find relief somehow.

I know that people that believe in ghosts see them.   If you were in India she may have called herself Ganesh.  Beliefs arise from consciousness.  As far as we can tell, consciousness is shaped by physical processes in the brain.  Strangely, it seems that consciousness might be able to change the physical makeup of the brain.  I hope you guys find a way to heal your wife.


----------



## oldfella1962

oh my wife is much better. The doctors think it was a severe medication conflict. They might be right, because under her current medications & dosages she is very much back to her normal self. Being locked up for a month was pretty traumatizing but she (the whole family actually) learned a lot from the experience. I'm super-focused on keeping her in healthy mind & body. It could have been much, much worse though. I don't have time to tell the entire story of her breakdown but it was the most scary, intense, emotional period of my entire life and I'm a combat veteran with 22+ years in service!  I think we can weather just about any storm now.


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> oh my wife is much better. The doctors think it was a severe medication conflict. They might be right, because under her current medications & dosages she is very much back to her normal self. Being locked up for a month was pretty traumatizing but she (the whole family actually) learned a lot from the experience. I'm super-focused on keeping her in healthy mind & body. It could have been much, much worse though. I don't have time to tell the entire story of her breakdown but it was the most scary, intense, emotional period of my entire life and I'm a combat veteran with 22+ years in service!  I think we can weather just about any storm now.



That's good news.  Glad to hear it.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Yes, it’s misinterpreted and misunderstood. Obviously, the terrorist are not the only ones that do that.
> 
> I’m quite sure that you can read it, quote it, dissect it, etc. but that’s not the same as keeping it in context and having a spiritual understanding of it. If you did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.



What is the correct interpretation and understanding of these scriptures?

Joshua 6
17 And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.

Deuteronomy 20
16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and …

1 Samuel 15
1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves* and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

12 Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”

13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”

14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”

15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”

“Tell me,” Saul replied.

17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”*


----------



## Day trip

atlashunter said:


> What is the correct interpretation and understanding of these scriptures?
> 
> Joshua 6
> 17 And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.
> 
> Deuteronomy 20
> 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and …
> 
> 1 Samuel 15
> 1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
> 
> 4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
> 
> 7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves* and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
> 
> 10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
> 
> 12 Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”
> 
> 13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”
> 
> 14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
> 
> 15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
> 
> 16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”
> 
> “Tell me,” Saul replied.
> 
> 17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”*


*



I didn’t read all of these but the general gist of these type of stories is “Israel” is you or I, the one that God loves.  The “bad” people are our bad habits.  We must try to  destroy them all and become pure as God in heaven is pure.   Not because God won’t love us otherwise but because God knows it is the only way to true peace for us.    Too often when we are trying to be good we stop drinking, we stop cursing, we try to be nicer to people and we become better.  Better than we were before we let go of these bad habits.  So let’s say for an example, I’m doing pretty good with most of my bad habits but I really like to eat cabbage.  That in itself isn’t bad but when I don’t have cabbage, it makes me moody and anxious.  I get off work, go to the basement and sit for two hours with a big bowl of cabbage and “relax”.  Leaving my wife and kids alone for the three hours I’m home and awake.  I believe I’m doing alright because I’ve been pretty successful at being nicer so I want to hold on to this one bad habit because I really like it.  Let’s say I even eat cabbage less than I used to.  But this remaining bad habit will drive a wedge between my family and I.  It must go to so the stories say “kill em all”.  Get it?   

These violent teachings are about, listening to God and  eliminating ALL  of your bad habits so you can know the peace that he wants you to have.  


These aren’t literal stories.  If you have any specific one in mind, let me know and we can try to see what it means.*


----------



## oldfella1962

wow....so a specific command like "put to death all the women & children" isn't meant to be taken literally?  It's just a poetic, subtle way of telling people to fine-tune their lifestyle to live happier? 

Then maybe all that "fire & brimstone eternal torment for sinners" talk is really just a suggestion to increase my daily fiber intake!  Now it's all starting to make sense! 

It's like the bible is one of those psychological ink blot Rorshak tests where there are no right or wrong answers because everyone sees something different. BTW anyone who has ever been extensively tested knows what I mean - about half the pictures look like Bozo The Clown wrestling a wolverine and the other pictures are just plain weird.


----------



## ambush80

I was intrigued so I looked into it.  I found this interesting tid bit:

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

The comments section is interesting as well.  What do you guys think?


----------



## Day trip

oldfella1962 said:


> wow....so a specific command like "put to death all the women & children" isn't meant to be taken literally?  It's just a poetic, subtle way of telling people to fine-tune their lifestyle to live happier?
> 
> Then maybe all that "fire & brimstone eternal torment for sinners" talk is really just a suggestion to increase my daily fiber intake!  Now it's all starting to make sense!
> 
> It's like the bible is one of those psychological ink blot Rorshak tests where there are no right or wrong answers because everyone sees something different. BTW anyone who has ever been extensively tested knows what I mean - about half the pictures look like Bozo The Clown wrestling a wolverine and the other pictures are just plain weird.



Of course that was one example of one of those types of stories.  It’s not mine, it came from a book on the ancient Jewish tradition of midrash where they would look at stories from many perspectives and pull wisdom from them.  
Personally I usually just see Bozo the clown wrestling a wolverine.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Of course that was one example of one of those types of stories.  It’s not mine, it came from a book on the ancient Jewish tradition of midrash where they would look at stories from many perspectives and pull wisdom from them.
> Personally I usually just see Bozo the clown wrestling a wolverine.


We (A/As) have suggested that the Bible is a lesson book not the literal word of God.
Didn't go over well.


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> We (A/As) have suggested that the Bible is a lesson book not the literal word of God.
> Didn't go over well.



Like a flipping history book?  Do people really believe that??? That’s exactly why we have the one room school house.  “No child left behind” = we all wait on the slowest to catch on = organized religeon failure

I can see someone calling it the “literal work of God” as a lesson book but not as a history book.  You would think they would be pleased with your assessment.


----------



## 660griz

Day trip said:


> Like a flipping history book?  <snipped for brevity>
> I can see someone calling it the “literal work of God” as a lesson book but not as a history book.  You would think they would be pleased with your assessment.



If you think it is the literal work of God, what part made you think he/she is worthy of worship? The believe in me or burn forever part? 

Especially in the OT, I read very little impressive works of a God. A supposedly perfect being that messed up, had to flood and start over. Couldn't get it right the first time. A vengeful being that promoted slavery, rape, child killing, genocide, etc. 

It is history in the way that semi-primitive folks, just finding literacy, thought and behaved.


----------



## Day trip

660griz said:


> If you think it is the literal work of God, what part made you think he/she is worthy of worship? The believe in me or burn forever part?
> 
> Especially in the OT, I read very little impressive works of a God. A supposedly perfect being that messed up, had to flood and start over. Couldn't get it right the first time. A vengeful being that promoted slavery, rape, child killing, genocide, etc.
> 
> It is history in the way that semi-primitive folks, just finding literacy, thought and behaved.




I’m having a hard time understanding everyone’s meaning when you all are say “literal word of God”.  Like God wrote it with his own pen? Like he dictated it to a secretary? 

I believe wholeheartedly that what some of us call the _First Bible is the literal word of God.  Now, the first bible is creation itself and teaches us about the author through its very nature.  

Now the actual Bible I have heard called “the inspired Word of God”, I can see that but can someone please define the “literal word of God” so that we can discuss this?  I see some interesting things to talk about but feel like I’m going to head in the wrong direction without some clarity._


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> I’m having a hard time understanding everyone’s meaning when you all are say “literal word of God”.  Like God wrote it with his own pen? Like he dictated it to a secretary?
> 
> I believe wholeheartedly that what some of us call the _First Bible is the literal word of God.  Now, the first bible is creation itself and teaches us about the author through its very nature.
> 
> Now the actual Bible I have heard called “the inspired Word of God”, I can see that but can someone please define the “literal word of God” so that we can discuss this?  I see some interesting things to talk about but feel like I’m going to head in the wrong direction without some clarity._


_
I used "literal word of God " so I'll explain -
God wrote the Bible through the pens of the various authors of the various books.
They wrote it but he dictated it. And by dictated I mean he put the words in the author's heads and they wrote them.
We've also heard the "inspired word of God" with the same definition I gave for "literal word of God".

We typically challenge that with the fact that men decided what books were to be  used so how did they know what they accepted was the "word of God" and what they rejected wasn't?
The answer we get to that is typically God guided that process too._


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> I used "literal word of God " so I'll explain -
> God wrote the Bible through the pens of the various authors of the various books.
> They wrote it but he dictated it. And by dictated I mean he put the words in the author's heads and they wrote them.
> We've also heard the "inspired word of God" with the same definition I gave for "literal word of God".
> 
> We typically challenge that with the fact that men decided what books were to be  used so how did they know what they accepted was the "word of God" and what they rejected wasn't?
> The answer we get to that is typically God guided that process too.



Very good, this deserves more time and attention than I have at the moment.  Off to work and I will bring this up later.  I’m actually excited about this conversation!


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Day trip said:


> Very good, this deserves more time and attention than I have at the moment.  Off to work and I will bring this up later.  I’m actually excited about this conversation!


Lets start a new thread on it. Otherwise it will overwhelm an already good thread and derail it...... plus post will be so multi focused. Should be super interesting..... and draw lots of diverse opinions


----------



## oldfella1962

WaltL1 said:


> We (A/As) have suggested that the Bible is a lesson book not the literal word of God.
> Didn't go over well.



I would think not, because there are thousands of "lesson books" written by man. The bible is considered the only one written (through chosen authors) and authorized by god himself. Interesting thing about the Old Testament - many Jews are more open to the thought that many of the stories are not to be taken literally or even true - they are just "temple stories" used to educate, inspire, and promote/bind together the Jewish culture. The stories are used to "fill seats" in their religion to put it another way. Any chance Christianity might be doing the same thing too? Granted there aren't as many epic slaughters like killing 5,000  enemy soldiers with the jawbone of a donkey (so just how do you train for that kind of combat anyway? As a soldier myself this intrigues me) in the New Testament but there is feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread so there are some amazing stories.


----------



## oldfella1962

660griz said:


> If you think it is the literal work of God, what part made you think he/she is worthy of worship? The believe in me or burn forever part?
> 
> Especially in the OT, I read very little impressive works of a God. A supposedly perfect being that messed up, had to flood and start over. Couldn't get it right the first time. A vengeful being that promoted slavery, rape, child killing, genocide, etc.
> 
> It is history in the way that semi-primitive folks, just finding literacy, thought and behaved.



indeed! It's almost as if the Old Testament reflects the tone & mindset of semi-primitive folks rather than a timeless, omnipotent being. 
Coincidence, I'm sure.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Translation in one sentence: Basically, everything good and convenient and positive in the Bible is the literal word of God, but everything nasty and horrifying and at odds with our current level of civilization or directly at odds with scientific evidence is just a parable or a lesson or was annulled by the New Covenant.


----------



## oldfella1962

NCHillbilly said:


> Translation in one sentence: Basically, everything good and convenient and positive in the Bible is the literal word of God, but everything nasty and horrifying and at odds with our current level of civilization or directly at odds with scientific evidence is just a parable or a lesson or was annulled by the New Covenant.



yep that's about right! It's all about how you spin it.


----------



## jmharris23

660griz said:


> If you think it is the literal work of God, what part made you think he/she is worthy of worship? The believe in me or burn forever part?
> 
> Especially in the OT, I read very little impressive works of a God. A supposedly perfect being that messed up, had to flood and start over. Couldn't get it right the first time. A vengeful being that promoted slavery, rape, child killing, genocide, etc.
> 
> It is history in the way that semi-primitive folks, just finding literacy, thought and behaved.




Promoted slavery, rape, etc? 

Interesting how we all read it so differently.


----------



## Day trip

1gr8bldr said:


> Lets start a new thread on it. Otherwise it will overwhelm an already good thread and derail it...... plus post will be so multi focused. Should be super interesting..... and draw lots of diverse opinions



Good idea


----------



## oldfella1962

jmharris23 said:


> Promoted slavery, rape, etc?
> 
> Interesting how we all read it so differently.



I wouldn't say the bible promotes these things as much as accepts them as status quo for the time when they were written. Kind of a "warts and all" view into how the world was and still is to some extent.


----------



## 660griz

jmharris23 said:


> Promoted slavery, rape, etc?
> 
> Interesting how we all read it so differently.



Would you like examples?


----------



## jmharris23

660griz said:


> Would you like examples?



Sure....why not?


----------



## hummerpoo

660griz said:


> If you think it is the literal work of God, what part made you think he/she is worthy of worship? The believe in me or burn forever part?
> 
> Especially in the OT, I read very little impressive works of a God. A supposedly perfect being that messed up, had to flood and start over. Couldn't get it right the first time. A vengeful being that promoted slavery, rape, child killing, genocide, etc.
> 
> It is history in the way that semi-primitive folks, just finding literacy, thought and behaved.



I'm ; but the highlight made me think of a little parable I read recently.  The attribution is not very clear to my uneducated mind, but it is apparently from about 400 yrs. back (I like that because it tells me that some of my favored ideas are not new but have been tested by time).

"St. Lewis, the king, having sent Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, on an embassy, the bishop met a woman on the way, grave, sad, fantastic, and melancholy, with fire in one hand, and water in the other.  He asked what those symbols meant.  She answered, My purpose is with fire to burn Paradise, and with my water to quench the flames of he11, that men may serve God without the incentives of hope and fear, and purely for the love of God."


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I'm ; but the highlight made me think of a little parable I read recently.  The attribution is not very clear to my uneducated mind, but it is apparently from about 400 yrs. back (I like that because it tells me that some of my favored ideas are not new but have been tested by time).
> 
> "St. Lewis, the king, having sent Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, on an embassy, the bishop met a woman on the way, grave, sad, fantastic, and melancholy, with fire in one hand, and water in the other.  He asked what those symbols meant.  She answered, My purpose is with fire to burn Paradise, and with my water to quench the flames of he11, that men may serve God without the incentives of hope and fear, and purely for the love of God."


I think the woman was pretty naive.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> I think the woman was pretty naive.



Although it is a source of frustration for some, I think you will find support from the majority  in many quarters.


----------



## 660griz

jmharris23 said:


> Sure....why not?



Here are a few.

Slavery:
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.’  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Rape:
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

If you rape, you gotta marry her.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’

“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.  (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Child killing:
Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”  Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.” 

Just murder:
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever.  It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.  Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy.  Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community.  Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest.  I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)


----------



## 660griz

oldfella1962 said:


> I wouldn't say the bible promotes these things as much as accepts them as status quo for the time when they were written. Kind of a "warts and all" view into how the world was and still is to some extent.



To me, that kind of rules out the bible being written by someone taking dictation from an all knowing God. 

It wasn't too long ago folks used 'slavery' in the Bible to justify it.


----------



## ky55

660griz said:


> To me, that kind of rules out the bible being written by someone taking dictation from an all knowing God.
> 
> It wasn't too long ago folks used 'slavery' in the Bible to justify it.



Yep. 

Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention
Atlanta, GA 1995

“WHEREAS, Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention; and

WHEREAS, Many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery; and

WHEREAS, In later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans; and

WHEREAS, Racism has led to discrimination, oppression, injustice, and violence, both in the Civil War and throughout the history of our nation; and“

Full resolution here:

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/...nniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention



*


----------



## oldfella1962

hummerpoo said:


> I'm ; but the highlight made me think of a little parable I read recently.  The attribution is not very clear to my uneducated mind, but it is apparently from about 400 yrs. back (I like that because it tells me that some of my favored ideas are not new but have been tested by time).
> 
> "St. Lewis, the king, having sent Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, on an embassy, the bishop met a woman on the way, grave, sad, fantastic, and melancholy, with fire in one hand, and water in the other.  He asked what those symbols meant.  She answered, My purpose is with fire to burn Paradise, and with my water to quench the flames of he11, that men may serve God without the incentives of hope and fear, and purely for the love of God."



that's pretty deep! This kind of thing gets me thinking: if I were god I would wonder if one of my believers really loves me (loves to serve me/praise me) or is just afraid of the consequences if they don't. So really the only true "unconditional love" for god would be if there were no heaven or hades. Ditto for god's love for humans! 

But I guess if you are not hoping for heaven and fearing hades you aren't really "doing it right" and don't believe in the true god - you are only loving & serving your fellow man. Personally I feel helping your fellow man when & where you can just because you can is the greatest aspiration and it's own reward. Yet god is a jealous god (his words, don't shoot the messenger!) so he wants your praises and the credit for helping your fellow man. All our "good works" are rags in his eyes if they aren't done in his name. 

Personally I don't want heaven or hades - maybe I just want to be left alone when I die! No human deserves either one. I can just go back to doing whatever I did before I was born, which from what I gather is a whole lot of nothing.  If it was interesting I'm sure I would have remembered some of it. 

I like the Mark Twain quote: "I was dead for billions of years before I was born, and it didn't seem to have harmed me any."


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> that's pretty deep! This kind of thing gets me thinking: if I were god I would wonder if one of my believers really loves me (loves to serve me/praise me) or is just afraid of the consequences if they don't. So really the only true "unconditional love" for god would be if there were no heaven or hades. Ditto for god's love for humans!
> 
> But I guess if you are not hoping for heaven and fearing hades you aren't really "doing it right" and don't believe in the true god - you are only loving & serving your fellow man. Personally I feel helping your fellow man when & where you can just because you can is the greatest aspiration and it's own reward. Yet god is a jealous god (his words, don't shoot the messenger!) so he wants your praises and the credit for helping your fellow man. All our "good works" are rags in his eyes if they aren't done in his name.
> 
> Personally I don't want heaven or hades - maybe I just want to be left alone when I die! No human deserves either one. I can just go back to doing whatever I did before I was born, which from what I gather is a whole lot of nothing.  If it was interesting I'm sure I would have remembered some of it.
> 
> I like the Mark Twain quote: "I was dead for billions of years before I was born, and it didn't seem to have harmed me any."



I think we need to collectively get away from this argument.  If we grant a god, then we're in no position to say what it would/wouldn't, should/shouldn't do, even if we were it. It's too much to imagine.  It's like asking "What will I do tomorrow?" if I were an infinite being.  The proposition is absurd from the start.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> It's too much to imagine.


 Folks have been doing it for thousands of years. 


> It's like asking "What will I do tomorrow?" if I were an infinite being.  The proposition is absurd from the start.



Unless you think all Gods are imagined, then it is actually right on. 

I see your point and it is valid. However, we(humans) do create so, we see that as analogous to God creating. Most can't comprehend treating a creation that is dearly loved like God does/did.. It just makes no sense, in our limited capacity. 
Why did God create the microbes that can kill us and not give the talent to cure until 1000s of years later and millions of lives gone? 
That is just a little of the rational/logic that one may use to decide the validity of a God. No science needed.  
I would also use some of that logic to decide if I were going to worship a God that I believed existed.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I think we need to collectively get away from this argument.  If we grant a god, then we're in no position to say what it would/wouldn't, should/shouldn't do, even if we were it. It's too much to imagine.  It's like asking "What will I do tomorrow?" if I were an infinite being.  The proposition is absurd from the start.


I would agree BUT.....
Christianity has defined this god. Given it a personality. What it finds good/bad. What it "is".
Using those parameters isn't it fair to say "if I was God"?
You are coming from the angle that we cant know what a god is.
In this case we know/are told what god supposedly is.
That changes things.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Folks have been doing it for thousands of years.
> 
> 
> Unless you think all Gods are imagined, then it is actually right on.
> 
> I see your point and it is valid. However, we(humans) do create so, we see that as analogous to God creating. Most can't comprehend treating a creation that is dearly loved like God does/did.. It just makes no sense, in our limited capacity.
> Why did God create the microbes that can kill us and not give the talent to cure until 1000s of years later and millions of lives gone?
> That is just a little of the rational/logic that one may use to decide the validity of a God. No science needed.
> I would also use some of that logic to decide if I were going to worship a God that I believed existed.



I think that's where we should couch the discussion.  

Imagine an extremely powerful alien life form that could control weather, part seas, drown millions in a flood, turn people into pillars of salt, raise people from the dead, glue ears back on, walk on water, etc. came to Earth and demanded that we call it God and worship it as so.  I'm sure some of the most hard headed of us would refuse to kneel before such a seemingly arbitrarily unjust creature.  A rational analysis of the situation might lead one to submit.  I'll cross that bridge if we ever get there. I'm not convinced by the recorded claims that such a being has ever existed.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I would agree BUT.....
> Christianity has defined this god. Given it a personality. What it finds good/bad. What it "is".
> Using those parameters isn't it fair to say "if I was God"?
> You are coming from the angle that we cant know what a god is.
> In this case we know/are told what god supposedly is.
> That changes things.



That's right.  The question is more like "Are we gonna play their game or one in which the rules are sensible?"


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> I think that's where we should couch the discussion.
> 
> Imagine an extremely powerful alien life form that could control weather, part seas, drown millions in a flood, turn people into pillars of salt, raise people from the dead, glue ears back on, walk on water, etc. came to Earth and demanded that we call it God and worship it as so.  I'm sure some of the most hard headed of us would refuse to kneel before such a seemingly arbitrarily unjust creature.  A rational analysis of the situation might lead one to submit.  I'll cross that bridge if we ever get there. I'm not convinced by the recorded claims that such a being has ever existed.



What if this creature claimed "I AM the great I AM.  I am the god of your books.  I am all seeing and all knowing eternal alpha and omega".  Would we be skeptical if He decided to come in a ship of unknown origin?  Would it make a difference if the ship was all technologically advanced looking or if it were a firey chariot pulled by gigantic horses?  Isn't that interesting?  My first instinct is to believe it MORE if it presents itself in the style of antiquity, perhaps in the epitome of advanced technology from the time of the writings of the ancient texts.  I think that demonstrates the depth of my enculturation.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> That's right.  The question is more like "Are we gonna play their game or one in which the rules are sensible?"


Dont we already willingly do that in here every day for the sake of being able to discuss this subject?


----------



## j_seph

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.


Love how I have been reading these post this week and then this comes up in sermon at church last night.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Don't we already willingly do that in here every day for the sake of being able to discuss this subject?



We do.  But sometimes a Day Trip will come along who has the ability to detach from the dogma and talk about this stuff in another context.



j_seph said:


> Psalm 53:1
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
> 
> 
> Love how I have been reading these post this week and then this comes up in sermon at church last night.



Spitting on my lucky crankbait works every time, too.


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> Psalm 53:1
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
> 
> 
> Love how I have been reading these post this week and then this comes up in sermon at church last night.



 Can you think of a sermon that wouldn't apply to our discussions here?  Me neither.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Psalm 53:1
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
> 
> 
> Love how I have been reading these post this week and then this comes up in sermon at church last night.


Feel better about yourself now?


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> Psalm 53:1
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
> 
> 
> Love how I have been reading these post this week and then this comes up in sermon at church last night.



Judge not, that ye be not judged.


----------



## jmharris23

Day trip said:


> I didn’t read all of these but the general gist of these type of stories is “Israel” is you or I, the one that God loves.  The “bad” people are our bad habits.  We must try to  destroy them all and become pure as God in heaven is pure.   Not because God won’t love us otherwise but because God knows it is the only way to true peace for us.    Too often when we are trying to be good we stop drinking, we stop cursing, we try to be nicer to people and we become better.  Better than we were before we let go of these bad habits.  So let’s say for an example, I’m doing pretty good with most of my bad habits but I really like to eat cabbage.  That in itself isn’t bad but when I don’t have cabbage, it makes me moody and anxious.  I get off work, go to the basement and sit for two hours with a big bowl of cabbage and “relax”.  Leaving my wife and kids alone for the three hours I’m home and awake.  I believe I’m doing alright because I’ve been pretty successful at being nicer so I want to hold on to this one bad habit because I really like it.  Let’s say I even eat cabbage less than I used to.  But this remaining bad habit will drive a wedge between my family and I.  It must go to so the stories say “kill em all”.  Get it?
> 
> These violent teachings are about, listening to God and  eliminating ALL  of your bad habits so you can know the peace that he wants you to have.
> 
> 
> These aren’t literal stories.  If you have any specific one in mind, let me know and we can try to see what it means.




Unreal


----------



## jmharris23

WaltL1 said:


> Dont we already willingly do that in here every day for the sake of being able to discuss this subject?



Yes....and like you said, there really isn’t another option


----------



## Day trip

jmharris23 said:


> Unreal



What, trying to explain that there is meaning beyond literal history?  I’m not specifically addressing any one story but a general idea.  Do you think these are just plain historical stories?  If so please show me the value of them besides saying my group is right and your group is wrong.


----------



## jmharris23

660griz said:


> Here are a few.
> 
> Slavery:
> If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.’  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
> 
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
> 
> The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
> 
> Rape:
> Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
> 
> (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
> 
> As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
> 
> If you rape, you gotta marry her.
> If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
> 
> Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’
> 
> “When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife
> 
> They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)
> 
> When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
> 
> Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.  (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
> 
> Child killing:
> Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”  Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.”
> 
> Just murder:
> The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever.  It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.  Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy.  Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community.  Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest.  I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)



Thanks ....definitely some tough stuff in these examples.


----------



## jmharris23

Day trip said:


> What, trying to explain that there is meaning beyond literal history?  I’m not specifically addressing any one story but a general idea.  Do you think these are just plain historical stories?  If so please show me the value of them besides saying my group is right and your group is wrong.



I believe the OT is a collection of historical stories that define the nature of God as well as His relationship with His chosen people, Israel. That is their value.


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> Can you think of a sermon that wouldn't apply to our discussions here?  Me neither.



I’ve preached plenty of sermons that in no way applied to this conversation


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Psalm 53:1
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
> 
> 
> Love how I have been reading these post this week and then this comes up in sermon at church last night.


Ask your pastor why he doesn't read the verses about incest, rape and slavery in his sermons.


----------



## Day trip

jmharris23 said:


> I believe the OT is a collection of historical stories that define the nature of God as well as His relationship with His chosen people, Israel. That is their value.



So the unchosen people, they are born SOL? God hates them? God wants us to kill them?  Tell me about the nature of God from the OT.


----------



## jmharris23

Ok....but we won’t agree and you won’t like it



Day trip said:


> So the unchosen people, they are born SOL? Maybe
> 
> God hates them? He hated Esau?
> 
> God wants us to kill them?  Absolutely not
> 
> Tell me about the nature of God from the OT.   It already does, you just don’t like it, so you say it’s all allegorical stories to teach us moral lessons.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Ask your pastor why he doesn't read the verses about incest, rape and slavery in his sermons.



Who says he doesn’t?


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> I believe the OT is a collection of historical stories that define the nature of God as well as His relationship with His chosen people, Israel. That is their value.


It has been shown that no Exodus occurred.  Much of the history in the bible is fabricated and embellished so the stories only define whatever the author wanted told with zero truth to back it up.
There is a big difference when someone tells a story and everything checks out. That is factual history.
When stories are told that do not tell the truth or are accurate, it is called fiction.
The Greeks wrote thousands of years worth of stories where Gods intermingled right along man. The stories mix some real people ,places and events with supernatural tales mixed in that all deal with their gods wishes and interactions.
Those stories were also "inspired".

The contents of the bible are no different.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> It has been shown that no Exodus occurred.  Much of the history in the bible is fabricated and embellished so the stories only define whatever the author wanted told with zero truth to back it up.
> There is a big difference when someone tells a story and everything checks out. That is factual history.
> When stories are told that do not tell the truth or are accurate, it is called fiction.
> The Greeks wrote thousands of years worth of stories where Gods intermingled right along man. The stories mix some real people ,places and events with supernatural tales mixed in that all deal with their gods wishes and interactions.
> Those stories were also "inspired".
> 
> The contents of the bible are no different.




Thanks, I appreciate you setting me straight


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Who says he doesn’t?



I have never,  ever heard anyone come in here and start a thread about their pastor rattling off a bunch of those passages and relating it to real life like in most sermons.

I cant for sure say his pastor did or didn't but if he did I would bet after the shocked and dazed looks subsided and the mothers took their hands off their childrens ears..NOBODY went on a forum and bragged about how well it went or how fitting it was.
We have brought up the nasties in the bible a hundred times....why didn't you step in and say..  well I JUST spent 45 minutes on a sermon about those things this very Sunday...
And neither has anyone else.


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> Dont we already willingly do that in here every day for the sake of being able to discuss this subject?



If we didn’t pretend, we couldn’t even participate in the discussions. 

*


----------



## ky55

j_seph said:


> Psalm 53:1
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
> 
> 
> Love how I have been reading these post this week and then this comes up in sermon at church last night.




Signs and wonders.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> I have never,  ever heard anyone comenin here and start a thread about their pastor rattling off a bunch of those passages and relating it to real life like in most sermons.
> 
> I cant for sure say his pastor did or didn't but if he did I would bet after the shocked and dazed looks subsided and the mothers took their hands off their childrens ears..NOBODY went on a forum and bragged about how well it went or how fitting it was.
> We have brought up the nasties in the bible a hundred times....why didn't you step in and say..  well I JUST spent 45 minutes on a sermon about those things this very Sunday...
> And neither has anyone else.



Mainly because I don’t come in here and say much of anything. 

I’ve preached quite a few sermons out of difficult OT passages and read the passage word for word when I did. Does every pastor? No. But many have.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Thanks, I appreciate you setting me straight



I am not setting you or anyone straight. 
I am informing you.
What you do with that is on you.

What I'd like is for you to show me that I am incorrect so that I can research it more. But the typical reply is something along the lines of yours and I get the feeling that after a reply like that the information is erased and you will continue to talk about the OT as if it is actual history without ever really seeing how much you can find out about it.

Note: "You" is meant for whoever it may apply to.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Mainly because I don’t come in here and say much of anything.
> 
> I’ve preached quite a few sermons out of difficult OT passages and read the passage word for word when I did. Does every pastor? No. But many have.




If you say that you did I'll take your word for it.
I've not seen anyone else in here admit to it happening. That doesnt mean it has not, but there has not been a single  thread telling about it, nor has any of those passages been quoted by believers to back up their beliefs or their god like the hundreds of scripture quotes that are used daily. 

I can only guess that deep down, nobody really wants to brag about them.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> I have never,  ever heard anyone comenin here and start a thread about their pastor rattling off a bunch of those passages and relating it to real life like in most sermons.
> 
> I cant for sure say his pastor did or didn't but if he did I would bet after the shocked and dazed looks subsided and the mothers took their hands off their childrens ears..NOBODY went on a forum and bragged about how well it went or how fitting it was.
> We have brought up the nasties in the bible a hundred times....why didn't you step in and say..  well I JUST spent 45 minutes on a sermon about those things this very Sunday...
> And neither has anyone else.





bullethead said:


> I am not setting you or anyone straight.
> I am informing you.
> What you do with that is on you.
> 
> What I'd like is for you to show me that I am incorrect so that I can research it more. But the typical reply is something along the lines of yours and I get the feeling that after a reply like that the information is erased and you will continue to talk about the OT as if it is actual history without ever really seeing how much you can find out about it.
> 
> Note: "You" is meant for whoever it may apply to.




I wasn’t trying to be a smart butt or avoid you. I’m not avoiding anything difficult in the Bible. 

There is too much to avoid. 

We both know that as far as anyone knows that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus. 

I don’t need it. You do. 

You think I’m naive or dumb or whatever for believing it anyway. I’m ok with that and if we knew each other in real life we could still be friends.


----------



## ambush80

jmharris23 said:


> I’ve preached plenty of sermons that in no way applied to this conversation



Tell me one and watch me spin it.  My point is that if someone wants to see signs they will.


----------



## ambush80

jmharris23 said:


> I wasn’t trying to be a smart butt or avoid you. I’m not avoiding anything difficult in the Bible.
> 
> There is too much to avoid.
> 
> We both know that as far as anyone knows that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus.
> 
> I don’t need it. You do.
> 
> You think I’m naive or dumb or whatever for believing it anyway. I’m ok with that and if we knew each other in real life we could still be friends.



Strange.  Why don't you need it?


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> Strange.  Why don't you need it?



Because Jesus said the OT was true and I believe Him


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> I wasn’t trying to be a smart butt or avoid you. I’m not avoiding anything difficult in the Bible.
> 
> There is too much to avoid.
> 
> We both know that as far as anyone knows that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus.
> 
> I don’t need it. You do.
> 
> You think I’m naive or dumb or whatever for believing it anyway. I’m ok with that and if we knew each other in real life we could still be friends.



I absolutely do not think you or anyone else is naive or dumb. I have dear friends and family that are extremely religious and I could not think more highly of them, or of you based off of the limited interactions that we have had over the years.

But, when a story that is such a major part of the OT which tell of the things that happened in the Exodus turns out to LITERALLY have never happened......

Yeah, I DO need it to. Otherwise it is fiction.
If something that important to the start of a religion is actually a made up story and everything that follows it is based from that tale.....that says everything I need to know about how accurate the entire works are.
Yeah, I expect more.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> I absolutely do not think you or anyone else is naive or dumb. I have dear friends and family that are extremely religious and I could not think more highly of them, or of you based off of the limited interactions that we have had over the years.
> 
> But, when a story that is tmsuch a major part of the OT which tell of the things that happened in the Exodus turns out to LITERALLY have never happened......
> 
> Yeah, I DO need it to. Otherwise it is fiction.
> If something that important to the start of a religion is actually a made up story and everything that follows it is based from that tale.....that says everything I need to know about how accurate the entire works are.
> Yeah, I expect more.




As far as you know....it never happened


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Because Jesus said the OT was true and I believe Him



Well Paul or an anonymous author wrote that Jesus said that the OT was true.

It's kind of like Stan Lee writing lines for Iron Man that have Iron Man saying that Marvel Comics were true.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> As far as you know....it never happened



Based on all of the available evidence.
If something changes so will I.


----------



## Day trip

jmharris23 said:


> Ok....but we won’t agree and you won’t like it



Maybe but I will be honest and respectful in any reply.  I am sincerely curious. If I see that we cannot agree then I’ll let it sit on the shelf while I consider your perspective. I know I am unorthodox but it is not merely to start trouble.  Unfortunately I am a sincere trouble maker


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Well Paul or an anonymous author wrote that Jesus said that the OT was true.
> 
> It's kind of like Stan Lee writing lines for Iron Man that have Iron Man saying that Marvel Comics were true.




Ok? I’m just not sure how to respond to you on these things. 

There is a lot of scholarship on both sides of this. Those who believe say one thing and those who don’t say another. Kind of like in here.....but I’m not sure either side proves anything. 

I’ll check back in tomorrow maybe....taking ones of my baby girls to soccer practice!


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Ok? I’m just not sure how to respond to you on these things.
> 
> There is a lot of scholarship on both sides of this. Those who believe say one thing and those who don’t say another. Kind of like in here.....but I’m not sure either side proves anything.
> 
> I’ll check back in tomorrow maybe....taking ones of my baby girls to soccer practice!



Why I tend to take the stance that I do on it is not based off of the scholarship(which is great for both sides), but the evidence or more importantly lack of evidence.
All those people wandering the desert for 40 years left no trace.
That is telling.

Be safe.
I hope your daughter has fun.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Ok? I’m just not sure how to respond to you on these things.
> 
> There is a lot of scholarship on both sides of this. Those who believe say one thing and those who don’t say another. Kind of like in here.....but I’m not sure either side proves anything.
> 
> I’ll check back in tomorrow maybe....taking ones of my baby girls to soccer practice!


 I also used to use the Bible as its own source of proof. When I set out to reinforce those beliefs by checking outside of the bible, I was upset to find that something that was supposed to be infallible was everything but. The more I checked the more I found. I just didn't stop because I didnt like what I found.


Stan Lee is a real writer(like Paul)who created a character named Iron Man(Jesus) and Stan Lee(Paul) used his own words inserted as if Iron Man(Jesus) said them as some sort of proof that the previous episodes of the book(OT) was true. 

Many authors write Historical Fiction today. They will take a real person or real event and expound on it by mixing in their writing skills with factual history.
Killer Angels by Michael Shaara comes to mind.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> I also used to use the Bible as its own source of proof. When I set out to reinforce those beliefs by checking outside of the bible, I was upset to find that something that was supposed to be infallible was everything but. The more I checked the more I found. I just didn't stop because I didnt like what I found.
> 
> 
> Stan Lee is a real writer(like Paul)who created a character named Iron Man(Jesus) and Stan Lee(Paul) used his own words inserted as if Iron Man(Jesus) said them as some sort of proof that the previous episodes of the book(OT) was true.
> 
> Many authors write Historical Fiction today. They will take a real person or real event and expound on it by mixing in their writing skills with factual history.
> Killer Angels by Michael Shaara comes to mind.




There are more than a few people who trust the historical reliability of the gospels. There are also a plenty and growing number who do not. But as of right now no one has come with a strong enough refutation of the historical reliability of the gospels to change my mind?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

too many things the Bible says are true have been documented for me to believe anything else.  From the location of cities that are being documented even now, to seals found with prophets names inscribed on them that date to the time they are suppose to.  All kinds of physical evidence out there.


----------



## Day trip

So one school says “I have found some things that are not true so therefore nothing is true”.  The other school says, “I have found that some things that are true therefore all of it is true.”
There are very few (that I can see) that are bold enough to hold the tension of unknowing in order to discover for ourselves.  

The idea that we are born depraved or with original sin is garbage.  It’s false humility.  If one believes that the Bible is all true, why throw away the idea that man is created in the image and likeness of God?  Is God depraved?   St. Ireneas came up with an optimistic idea about original sin as a gift of God.  It was through giving mankind the ability to choose that God also gave him the ability to sin.  St. Augustine turned it into the guilt laden garbage that it is today.  It’s not dogma, it’s another misunderstood lesson. 

Original sin is an excuse.  Like The myth of Adam in the garden who says, “It was the woman, whom you put here who gave me the fruit to eat.”  You see, it’s God’s fault for giving him the woman, it’s the woman’s fault for giving him the fruit.”  And it’s not my fault, I was born this way! 

These myths , yes myths, not historical facts are indeed lessons about the nature of man.  

Is anyone willing to hold themselves accountable?  The A/A’s seem more self accountable than most Christians.  Unfortunately,  they have been bullied by self righteous Christians into rejecting the Bible, a resource that is very valuable in self discovery.  

“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
                                                          Matthew 12:32

This is why I have more hope for the A/A’s than many Christians.  They deny Jesus in word because they do not know him.  Christians deny the Holy Spirit by pretending to be righteous because they claim to believe the Bible is literal.  By holding ourselves accountable we have the ability to invoke the Holy Spirit, testing and accepting what is good while rejecting what is evil.  By saying, “I’m no good therefore I have to force myself to pretend that the Bible is literal”,  we reject the Holy Spirit which is God in us!  

Until we first learn to see God in ourselves, mirroring himself in ALL of creation including literary works such as the Bible, then we can never see God in others.  It’s just a game of who can follow rules the best and in the end, we are all losers.  

Jesus never wrote anything.  Why?  Because as soon as he did, we would take it out of context and idolize it.  Words can only inspire, it is through living that we discover God, even if we take the hard road of denying  Jesus.  

It’s like Emerson said concerning Jesus, “The idiom of his language and the figure of his rhetoric have usurped the place of his truth; and churches are not built on his principles, but his tropes.”


Through all of these discussions and debates, the only time I have felt the metaphorical hand of God was during the Introduction thread and through a few of your, “oh by the way, stories” about your actual lives that are in here.  I’m a little frustrated right now, sorry for the rant.  I’m going to just go live for a bit, Peace be with you all.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> So one school says “I have found some things that are not true so therefore nothing is true”.  The other school says, “I have found that some things that are true therefore all of it is true.”
> There are very few (that I can see) that are bold enough to hold the tension of unknowing in order to discover for ourselves.
> 
> The idea that we are born depraved or with original sin is garbage.  It’s false humility.  If one believes that the Bible is all true, why throw away the idea that man is created in the image and likeness of God?  Is God depraved?   St. Ireneas came up with an optimistic idea about original sin as a gift of God.  It was through giving mankind the ability to choose that God also gave him the ability to sin.  St. Augustine turned it into the guilt laden garbage that it is today.  It’s not dogma, it’s another misunderstood lesson.
> 
> Original sin is an excuse.  Like The myth of Adam in the garden who says, “It was the woman, whom you put here who gave me the fruit to eat.”  You see, it’s God’s fault for giving him the woman, it’s the woman’s fault for giving him the fruit.”  And it’s not my fault, I was born this way!
> 
> These myths , yes myths, not historical facts are indeed lessons about the nature of man.
> 
> Is anyone willing to hold themselves accountable?  The A/A’s seem more self accountable than most Christians.  Unfortunately,  they have been bullied by self righteous Christians into rejecting the Bible, a resource that is very valuable in self discovery.
> 
> “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
> Matthew 12:32
> 
> This is why I have more hope for the A/A’s than many Christians.  They deny Jesus in word because they do not know him.  Christians deny the Holy Spirit by pretending to be righteous because they claim to believe the Bible is literal.  By holding ourselves accountable we have the ability to invoke the Holy Spirit, testing and accepting what is good while rejecting what is evil.  By saying, “I’m no good therefore I have to force myself to pretend that the Bible is literal”,  we reject the Holy Spirit which is God in us!
> 
> Until we first learn to see God in ourselves, mirroring himself in ALL of creation including literary works such as the Bible, then we can never see God in others.  It’s just a game of who can follow rules the best and in the end, we are all losers.
> 
> Jesus never wrote anything.  Why?  Because as soon as he did, we would take it out of context and idolize it.  Words can only inspire, it is through living that we discover God, even if we take the hard road of denying  Jesus.
> 
> It’s like Emerson said concerning Jesus, “The idiom of his language and the figure of his rhetoric have usurped the place of his truth; and churches are not built on his principles, but his tropes.”
> 
> 
> Through all of these discussions and debates, the only time I have felt the metaphorical hand of God was during the Introduction thread and through a few of your, “oh by the way, stories” about your actual lives that are in here.  I’m a little frustrated right now, sorry for the rant.  I’m going to just go live for a bit, Peace be with you all.


I agree with some of your assessment but on some things you are painting with too broad of a brush.
I'll speak for myself however I know many A/As who agree with me (and some who don't) -


> “I have found some things that are not true so therefore nothing is true”.


I believe some parts (people, places etc) of the Bible to be "true".


> Unfortunately,  they have been bullied by self righteous Christians into rejecting the Bible,


I have been (past and present) bullied into NOT rejecting the Bible.  Didn't work. I reject parts and accept parts.


> They deny Jesus in word because they do not know him


.
Every  single bit of information that a Christian has about Jesus, A/As have too.


> it is through living that we discover God


Or not. Or discover a different god. Or no god.


> even if we take the hard road of denying  Jesus.


I believe Jesus existed, was a "preacher" and had followers.


> Peace be with you


And also with you.


----------



## hummerpoo

oldfella1962 said:


> that's pretty deep! This kind of thing gets me thinking: if I were god I would wonder if one of my believers really loves me (loves to serve me/praise me) or is just afraid of the consequences if they don't.




But God doesn't wonder, right?



> So really the only true "unconditional love" for god would be if there were no heaven or hades.



Although the woman in the parable seeks to solve the problem of the incentives by eliminating them, what if they are not incentives at all, but are only perceived as incentives?  What if "hope" is promised to God's People while they are living in this age, and fear (dread) is promised to be absent from God's People while living in this age?
>>edit ...Not an inducement to act, but the inevitable result to the act of Another.



> Ditto for god's love for humans!



I don't understand this.



> But I guess if you are not hoping for heaven and fearing hades you aren't really "doing it right" and don't believe in the true god - you are only loving & serving your fellow man. Personally I feel helping your fellow man when & where you can just because you can is the greatest aspiration and it's own reward.



You don't exactly say it this way, but I'm going to take it that by "it's own reward" you mean something akin to "it makes you feel good", or it "is self-satisfying".  Expressed that way the act, at its root, seems to be done for yourself, not for the recipient of the good you have done, or for God; it would be selfish.



> Yet god is a jealous god (his words, don't shoot the messenger!) so he wants your praises and the credit for helping your fellow man. All our "good works" are rags in his eyes if they aren't done in his name.



We cannot provide the water that provides eternal relief from thirst.  The One who can deserves the praise.  We are rewarded with the joy of watching Him work, and what a joy it is.



> Personally I don't want heaven or hades - maybe I just want to be left alone when I die! No human deserves either one. I can just go back to doing whatever I did before I was born, which from what I gather is a whole lot of nothing.  If it was interesting I'm sure I would have remembered some of it.
> 
> I like the Mark Twain quote: "I was dead for billions of years before I was born, and it didn't seem to have harmed me any."



And miss the joy?


----------



## 660griz

jmharris23 said:


> Because Jesus said the OT was true and I believe Him



I have heard that the OT is not valid anymore. 
What do you think?
What do you think the below verses mean?

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”  (Matthew 5:17 )


----------



## oldfella1962

Yeah good point about Adam blaming Eve, and everyone blaming the snake. Man up, Adam!  You're a man, act like one. You made a mistake, own that mistake. If a man is supposed to be the head of his family Adam is a very poor example of moral courage & inspiring leadership. So I guess the second original sin is cowardice.


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with some of your assessment but on some things you are painting with too broad of a brush.
> I'll speak for myself however I know many A/As who agree with me (and some who don't) -
> 
> I believe some parts (people, places etc) of the Bible to be "true".
> 
> I have been (past and present) bullied into NOT rejecting the Bible.  Didn't work. I reject parts and accept parts.
> .
> Every  single bit of information that a Christian has about Jesus, A/As have too.
> 
> Or not. Or discover a different god. Or no god.
> 
> I believe Jesus existed, was a "preacher" and had followers.
> 
> And also with you.





Good to hear Walt, and I am very interested in hearing more.  I think I’m biting off too much to chew, hence the friustration.  I’m curious about the nature of non-believers, for example, you and Bullet have made posts about how hard it was to make your choices to stop following organized religeon.  I wanted to ask questions but couldn’t think of any that would let me feel what you felt and thought what you thought.  I’m going to think about the smartest way to approach this without having the same circle logic resurfacing.  I think it may be best for me to take simple lessons, parables, etc and ask you all about them as opposed to the whole Bible.  Hope this is ok with you all.


----------



## Day trip

oldfella1962 said:


> Yeah good point about Adam blaming Eve, and everyone blaming the snake. Man up, Adam!  You're a man, act like one. You made a mistake, own that mistake. If a man is supposed to be the head of his family Adam is a very poor example of moral courage & inspiring leadership. So I guess the second original sin is cowardice.



I wonder, is cowardice the root of holding accountability?


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> Good to hear Walt, and I am very interested in hearing more.  I think I’m biting off too much to chew, hence the friustration.  I’m curious about the nature of non-believers, for example, you and Bullet have made posts about how hard it was to make your choices to stop following organized religeon.  I wanted to ask questions but couldn’t think of any that would let me feel what you felt and thought what you thought.  I’m going to think about the smartest way to approach this without having the same circle logic resurfacing.  I think it may be best for me to take simple lessons, parables, etc and ask you all about them as opposed to the whole Bible.  Hope this is ok with you all.



To add insight, I know you didn't ask me about my conversion and I wonder if it's because I said I remembered it being fun.  It was fun like the first time you made a volcano with baking soda and vinegar and then learned why it did that.  Shaking off superstitious beliefs was a relief and joy at every step and it snowballed quickly.  Imagine not having to carry the burden of believing in The Ark story.  I know you don't take it literally but I did.  I remember that little inkling, call it a "***** of the heart", every time I examined if I really believed it was true.  That inkling has grown into a mighty bull poop detector.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Good to hear Walt, and I am very interested in hearing more.  I think I’m biting off too much to chew, hence the friustration.  I’m curious about the nature of non-believers, for example, you and Bullet have made posts about how hard it was to make your choices to stop following organized religeon.  I wanted to ask questions but couldn’t think of any that would let me feel what you felt and thought what you thought.  I’m going to think about the smartest way to approach this without having the same circle logic resurfacing.  I think it may be best for me to take simple lessons, parables, etc and ask you all about them as opposed to the whole Bible.  Hope this is ok with you all.


I'll be glad to try to answer most any question you ask.


----------



## jmharris23

oldfella1962 said:


> Yeah good point about Adam blaming Eve, and everyone blaming the snake. Man up, Adam!  You're a man, act like one. You made a mistake, own that mistake. If a man is supposed to be the head of his family Adam is a very poor example of moral courage & inspiring leadership. So I guess the second original sin is cowardice.



Not so much cowardice as passivity I think.


----------



## Day trip

ambush80 said:


> To add insight, I know you didn't ask me about my conversion and I wonder if it's because I said I remembered it being fun.  It was fun like the first time you made a volcano with baking soda and vinegar and then learned why it did that.  Shaking off superstitious beliefs was a relief and joy at every step and it snowballed quickly.  Imagine not having to carry the burden of believing in The Ark story.  I know you don't take it literally but I did.  I remember that little inkling, call it a "***** of the heart", every time I examined if I really believed it was true.  That inkling has grown into a mighty bull poop detector.



You’re right, I seemed to have overlooked your experience.  I do apologize.  I am very interested and if ok with you, hope to spend some time discussing it over time.


----------



## Day trip

jmharris23 said:


> Not so much cowardice as passivity I think.



Please explain a bit more.  Excusing ourselves of blame seems active to me but somehow cowardice doesn’t quite cover it either.


----------



## jmharris23

Day trip said:


> Please explain a bit more.  Excusing ourselves of blame seems active to me but somehow cowardice doesn’t quite cover it either.



Adam was passive in that he should have taken action. He should have refused. He should have told Eve “we’re going to do this.” He should have been a man. 

Instead he just stood there like a dummy and didn’t lead or protect his wife, which should have been his chief role in life.” 

He was just passive in a “whatever you think is best baby” kind of way.


----------



## oldfella1962

Day trip said:


> I wonder, is cowardice the root of holding accountability?



one form of cowardice is blaming others and not holding yourself accountable.


----------



## oldfella1962

jmharris23 said:


> Not so much cowardice as passivity I think.



regardless not a guy I'd want to have in charge or depend on.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> What is the correct interpretation and understanding of these scriptures?
> 
> Joshua 6
> 17 And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.
> 
> Deuteronomy 20
> 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and …
> 
> 1 Samuel 15
> 1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
> 
> 4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
> 
> 7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves* and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
> 
> 10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
> 
> 12 Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”
> 
> 13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”
> 
> 14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
> 
> 15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
> 
> 16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”
> 
> “Tell me,” Saul replied.
> 
> 17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”*


*


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ch...-command-killing-in-the-old-testament-170386/*


----------



## Israel

jmharris23 said:


> Adam was passive in that he should have taken action. He should have refused. He should have told Eve “we’re going to do this.” He should have been a man.
> 
> Instead he just stood there like a dummy and didn’t lead or protect his wife, which should have been his chief role in life.”
> 
> He was just passive in a “whatever you think is best baby” kind of way.



Do you believe Adam was appointed to this? 

To "face himself" and learn he had no power to resist himself? (Dare we forget "who" Eve is? From whom...she came out of? The very "stuff" of Eve? That constitutes...Eve?)

The strangeness of sin. In a moment all became "else" to Adam.
Is it its most compelling work? To deceive in that way? To fracture...where once no fracture was seen? The introduction of the appearance...of fracture, the seeing of a fracture?

What, in all does not change? What in all...did not change?
I see only one.

What remained of the given...that proved in its remaining to a perfect persistence and showed itself then, true? To what might Adam still look...and find _a perfection_?

And, is it any different "for us"? Or, are we fractured in our sight...from Adam?  

Is there _a perfect_ of reason, a perfection of reason to an understanding purposed in that reason, that He who has become for us all salvation, and even _all of reason_, bears a name?

He has eyes like blazing fire, and many royal crowns on His head. He has a name written on Him that only He Himself knows. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is The Word of God.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ch...-command-killing-in-the-old-testament-170386/



In post 760 you said any time someone kills at the behest of god it is misinterpreted and misunderstood. Now you’re giving me a link rather than your own answer that justifies these commands to kill on grounds that the Israelites would have been led to evil had they not committed genocide. Does this pass your smell test? Because it sure doesn’t pass mine. Murder an entire group of people including children and infants lest they might persuade you to live immorally. Seems the horse has already left the barn in this case. Should this godly principle still be put into action today? There are plenty of folks running around who are wicked to hear Christians tell it and leading people astray. Why should they also not be murdered? Who’s to say this unchanging god isn’t still instructing people to murder on this basis if he’s already done it in the past? And is this what passes for morality in the Christian religion? I think you can all do better than this.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> In post 760 you said any time someone kills at the behest of god it is misinterpreted and misunderstood. Now you’re giving me a link rather than your own answer that justifies these commands to kill on grounds that the Israelites would have been led to evil had they not committed genocide. Does this pass your smell test? Because it sure doesn’t pass mine. Murder an entire group of people including children and infants lest they might persuade you to live immorally. Seems the horse has already left the barn in this case. Should this godly principle still be put into action today? There are plenty of folks running around who are wicked to hear Christians tell it and leading people astray. Why should they also not be murdered? Who’s to say this unchanging god isn’t still instructing people to murder on this basis if he’s already done it in the past? And is this what passes for morality in the Christian religion? I think you can all do better than this.


Rather than retyping a lot of words, the link well explains how the cross ended all of that. So yes, if a person goes on a killing spree while trying to use scripture to justify it, they are misinterpreting and misunderstanding.

I’m aware that there’s a lot of people leading others astray, I find nothing scriptural that justifies killing them, if you understand the complete role of the cross. That too is also explained in that info.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Rather than retyping a lot of words, the link well explains how the cross ended all of that. So yes, if a person goes on a killing spree while trying to use scripture to justify it, they are misinterpreting and misunderstanding.
> 
> I’m aware that there’s a lot of people leading others astray, I find nothing scriptural that justifies killing them, if you understand the complete role of the cross. That too is also explained in that info.



That’s your interpretation and you’re entitled to it. So are others. The original point on which we are now in agreement is that this god of yours is one who has not only commanded murder but has commanded mass murder. That’s not a misinterpretation. That’s what is in your religious book. I’m not particularly interested in the apologists defense of it.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> That’s your interpretation and you’re entitled to it. So are others. The original point on which we are now in agreement is that this god of yours is one who has not only commanded murder but has commanded mass murder. That’s not a misinterpretation. That’s what is in your religious book. I’m not particularly interested in the apologists defense of it.



I don’t feel compelled to giving an apologetic defense for it. 

The point you have tried to make is that “Religious people” are following scripture when they fly planes into a building. 

The only point I wanted to make was they misinterpreted scripture.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I don’t feel compelled to giving an apologetic defense for it.
> 
> The point you have tried to make is that “Religious people” are following scripture when they fly planes into a building.
> 
> The only point I wanted to make was they misinterpreted scripture.



You miss the point. I cannot say whether or not they were really acting at the behest of a deity. I have my own suspicions on the matter. But one cannot say this god that they and you worship has never and would never command murder. Your religious texts says otherwise.


----------



## atlashunter

atlashunter said:


> You miss the point. I cannot say whether or not they were really acting at the behest of a deity. I have my own suspicions on the matter. But one cannot say this god that they and you worship has never and would never command murder. Your religious texts says otherwise.



And at this point you’ve already acknowledged that to be the case. Your only dispute is whether they were doing God’s will in that instance. If it could be shown beyond doubt that they were then you would be compelled to call it a moral act.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> You miss the point. I cannot say whether or not they were really acting at the behest of a deity. I have my own suspicions on the matter. But one cannot say this god that they and you worship has never and would never command murder. Your religious texts says otherwise.



I believe the plane flyers were acting on their belief and instruction of “Allah”. Can’t tell you a lot about their beliefs other than our own govt is saying that it’s a religion of peace with the exception of radicals. 

So I can safely assume that just like in my belief system, that misinterpretation and misunderstanding of any text happens elsewhere too.


----------



## oldfella1962

atlashunter said:


> That’s your interpretation and you’re entitled to it. So are others. The original point on which we are now in agreement is that this god of yours is one who has not only commanded murder but has commanded mass murder. That’s not a misinterpretation. That’s what is in your religious book. I’m not particularly interested in the apologists defense of it.



this is the main problem I have with Christianity - the god of the bible does horrendous things like commanding mass murder - but the default reasoning is "god has his reasons/we are too stupid to understand his thought process/if we have faith we will eventually understand but if not then no big deal, just trust & obey". 

I'm not seeing "god's love" in the equation at all. The message I see from god is "obey or be eternally punished."  So basically power & fear. We humans are contemptible, imperfect creatures (no argument from me there) so we must "love" the very entity that will send us to eternal torment if we don't. 

Explaining this arrangement to an alien from another planet with no concept of religion would drive them 

Yes there is one escape from the torment which involves again obedience - no love as humans feel it involved. Anyone can say they believe in (or love) jesus/god but obedience is the bottom line. And to really obey you must turn a blind eye to anything that your brain tells you is wrong - whether morally wrong (telling your chosen people to commit mass murder on several occasions or even commit it yourself) or factually wrong (Noah's ark). 

Granted loving your neighbor, being peaceful and merciful & law abiding & whatnot is preferable to the alternative, so there is a positive effect on society for the average person. 

But the basic message is "I hate you pathetic creatures and will send you to eternal torment if you don't fear, worship & obey me & my sinless son who I sacrificed because you idiots can never seem to get it right."


----------



## WaltL1

oldfella1962 said:


> this is the main problem I have with Christianity - the god of the bible does horrendous things like commanding mass murder - but the default reasoning is "god has his reasons/we are too stupid to understand his thought process/if we have faith we will eventually understand but if not then no big deal, just trust & obey".
> 
> I'm not seeing "god's love" in the equation at all. The message I see from god is "obey or be eternally punished."  So basically power & fear. We humans are contemptible, imperfect creatures (no argument from me there) so we must "love" the very entity that will send us to eternal torment if we don't.
> 
> Explaining this arrangement to an alien from another planet with no concept of religion would drive them
> 
> Yes there is one escape from the torment which involves again obedience - no love as humans feel it involved. Anyone can say they believe in (or love) jesus/god but obedience is the bottom line. And to really obey you must turn a blind eye to anything that your brain tells you is wrong - whether morally wrong (telling your chosen people to commit mass murder on several occasions or even commit it yourself) or factually wrong (Noah's ark).
> 
> Granted loving your neighbor, being peaceful and merciful & law abiding & whatnot is preferable to the alternative, so there is a positive effect on society for the average person.
> 
> But the basic message is "I hate you pathetic creatures and will send you to eternal torment if you don't fear, worship & obey me & my sinless son who I sacrificed because you idiots can never seem to get it right."





> Explaining this arrangement to an alien from another planet with no concept of religion would drive them


The alien would be like -


----------



## oldfella1962

Spotlite said:


> Rather than retyping a lot of words, the link well explains how the cross ended all of that. So yes, if a person goes on a killing spree while trying to use scripture to justify it, they are misinterpreting and misunderstanding.
> 
> I’m aware that there’s a lot of people leading others astray, I find nothing scriptural that justifies killing them, if you understand the complete role of the cross. That too is also explained in that info.



The complete role of the cross makes mass killing by god and/or his chosen people redundant? Riddle me this:
relatively soon after creating the world & mankind god realized humans would never stop sinning so he destroyed the world except for the few who were acting right. Sure enough after a while enough people were acting right so they became his "chosen people" AKA Jews. They weren't perfect, but they had potential so god helped them massacre their enemies and win enough battles so that they didn't go extinct, and their culture got well established over time. 

A couple of thousand years and change later both the Jews and the savage non-Jews were still sinning. Granted the crazy violent "kill & rape em' all let me sort it out" battles weren't happening as often but things weren't still right with the world. So god sent his son as a sacrifice because all the other sacrificing wasn't winning god's favor. 

So without the cross Jews would still be stuck with god in angry violent brutal mode and acting accordingly? No, since their religion doesn't consider jesus their savior yet they gave up the bronze age kill & plunder ways on their own. So I guess the cross is for anyone & everyone to accept since mankind will never get their act together & stop sinning because just our mere human existence is one big sin since Adam & Eve.

So believers in the true god of the bible/torah before jesus was crucified (which would have been Jews I guess) don't have to kill in god's name on a mass scale anymore since god sent a sacrifice that they don't believe in or follow.


----------



## Spotlite

oldfella1962 said:


> The complete role of the cross makes mass killing by god and/or his chosen people redundant? Riddle me this:
> relatively soon after creating the world & mankind god realized humans would never stop sinning so he destroyed the world except for the few who were acting right. Sure enough after a while enough people were acting right so they became his "chosen people" AKA Jews. They weren't perfect, but they had potential so god helped them massacre their enemies and win enough battles so that they didn't go extinct, and their culture got well established over time.
> 
> A couple of thousand years and change later both the Jews and the savage non-Jews were still sinning. Granted the crazy violent "kill & rape em' all let me sort it out" battles weren't happening as often but things weren't still right with the world. So god sent his son as a sacrifice because all the other sacrificing wasn't winning god's favor.
> 
> So without the cross Jews would still be stuck with god in angry violent brutal mode and acting accordingly? No, since their religion doesn't consider jesus their savior yet they gave up the bronze age kill & plunder ways on their own. So I guess the cross is for anyone & everyone to accept since mankind will never get their act together & stop sinning because just our mere human existence is one big sin since Adam & Eve.
> 
> So believers in the true god of the bible/torah before jesus was crucified (which would have been Jews I guess) don't have to kill in god's name on a mass scale anymore since god sent a sacrifice that they don't believe in or follow.


In short, these “killings” you speak of were judgement against sin and the “wicked”.  For their day, they’re actually considered “lawful killings” since it was a commandment from God. And as we have seen in recent discussion, lawful killings are ok 

Jews sacrificed to push aside their sin. Since the Jews were Gods chosen people, a blood sacrifice would be required, and would be for all of mankind, including the wicked. 

So yes the cross fixed all of that. Of course there are those that don’t believe that but that’s a separate topic.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> In short, these “killings” you speak of were judgement against sin and the “wicked”.  For their day, they’re actually considered “lawful killings” since it was a commandment from God. And as we have seen in recent discussion, lawful killings are ok
> 
> Jews sacrificed to push aside their sin. Since the Jews were Gods chosen people, a blood sacrifice would be required, and would be for all of mankind, including the wicked.
> 
> So yes the cross fixed all of that. Of course there are those that don’t believe that but that’s a separate topic.



If you think lawful killings are always ok then you think the holocaust was ok. Really you’re just making yourself look bad trying to defend the wholesale slaughter of people. He makes a good point. Jews don’t share your belief in the cross so in their view they are still under OT law. Your reasons for thinking god ordering mass murder is a relic of the past don’t apply to them. Or muslims. Or most of the history of Christianity for that matter. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> If you think lawful killings are always ok then you think the holocaust was ok. Really you’re just making yourself look bad trying to defend the wholesale slaughter of people. He makes a good point. Jews don’t share your belief in the cross so in their view they are still under OT law. Your reasons for thinking god ordering mass murder is a relic of the past don’t apply to them. Or muslims. Or most of the history of Christianity for that matter. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.


There’s no reasoning with you. I don’t think any killings are ok other than self defense where you are not given a choice. I went from all killings are wrong to giving your point of lawful killings and the law is what we make it and looking at it objectively and reasonably.
You’re disdain / hatred with Christianity will not allow you to do the same. Too closed minded. 

There was an era where slavery was legal and acceptable. Times change. I guess in your world, it doesn’t and every white man still owes the descendants of slavery victims......

Carry on with your rant.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> There’s no reasoning with you. I don’t think any killings are ok other than self defense where you are not given a choice. I went from all killings are wrong to giving your point of lawful killings and the law is what we make it and looking at it objectively and reasonably.
> You’re disdain / hatred with Christianity will not allow you to do the same. Too closed minded.
> 
> There was an era where slavery was legal and acceptable. Times change. I guess in your world, it doesn’t and every white man still owes the descendants of slavery victims......
> 
> Carry on with your rant.



You keep making reference to “lawful killings are ok” as if anyone but you has said that.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> You keep making reference to “lawful killings are ok” as if anyone but you has said that.



Ok, look at this solely on a legal / illegal perspective. I may have misunderstood you. 



Spotlite said:


> Suicide by assistance is nothing but murder.





atlashunter said:


> Is it? If I give you a gun knowing that you’re going to pull the trigger on yourself am I guilty of murder? Is that the same as doing it myself and taking your life against your will? Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a human life. And the law is what we make it.



Right now, regardless if it was against the persons will or not, if you assisted someone in suicide in a state where it was not legal, what are you legally charged with??? The only way to change that is to what???

For states that allow it for "terminally ill, mentally capable" adults, how are they proving that the patient is mentally capable when they're usually on mind altering drugs? That is a sticker for me. Seems like at some point someone is going to get laid to rest because others are ready to move on.


----------

