It's a favourite topic with atheists to go through the Bible looking for anything that may support Jesus was a hypocrite and wicked man. So what were these supposed evils?
According to the CHristian founder, Paul, Jesus was the miracle healer and God's kid. Referring to the Bible for details is a pointless and a waste of time. I believe that Jesus was like anyone else, guilty of the same crap that exist today. I'm sure he had love affaires and there's a story that he pushed a boy off a roof casuing his death when Jesus was about 10 or 12. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.
Where does the story of Jesus pushing a boy off a roof come from?
It was on a National Geographic segment on Jesus some time ago. Whether he did or not, is not important.
It comes from the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic gospel that claims Thomas is Jesus' twin brother. In that Gospel, Jesus was never crucified.
Greek philosophers combined their views with Christianity to make it more credible. The synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John were written down within the life-time of those who knew Jesus. The Gnostic gospels were written in the second century where none of the witnesses were alive so the Gnostic gospel writers just appended the names of the disciples and Mary to their gospels to lend credibility.
You seem to have got very confused information, historian accept and relgious 'scholars' accept that NONE of the gospels were written within living memory of anyone who would have known 'jesus'. The Gnostic gospels were in many cases those the catholic church threw out as they did not meet the message they were trying to put across. Matthew in the original gospel tells us jesus spent the night with a naked teenage boy and loved him truly, now this was removed from the catholic text and has remained out ever since as it doesn't follow the direction the creators of this religion wanted, (it also, pederasty, was illegal for Jews so jesus would have been breaking fundamental laws).
I think a little more of an open mind and wider scope of reading would open your mind or more probably shake your preconceived 'faith ideas'.
@claire Greek philosophers combined their views with Christianity to make it more credible.
it should be other way round...greek philosophy was always credible...
@claire get over it ...jesus is not end of world...world would be better place if jesus ,muhammad ,buddha are left alone and we focus on larger good of human species than wondering what these thousands of years ago people did...
This is a religious forum. You can go over to the pets forum if you don't want to hear this sort of thing. Jesus is alive today so He is not old news. All good comes from the Holy Spirit so focusing on Him increases good in this world.
Jesus is alive? I'll have to look up the definition of alive. Something not dead.
The guy have been dead for 2000 years and he's somehow alive? He's alive because someone, who was also lied to, told you so. And you, like the person who told you, accepted this without question.
What I meant was, Jesus is alive in the form of the Holy Spirit. No one believes Jesus is still around in the flesh.
@claire there is no proof of holy spirit either...one can believe in anything from santa to spider man to holy spirit...it means nothing other than human's urge to believe in fantasy...
There is proof of Him to those who love Him.
@claire ya like there is proof of ghost for those who fear him or proof of angels for those who believe in him...thats not called proof , thats call belief...nothing wrong in believing ...jesus is one of many entities in world believed by people ...
There's nothing wrong in knowing the truth, either.
Everybody has to take their own path in life and decide whether they truly want to know the truth about Jesus or not.
obviously there is nothing wrong in knowing the truth ...thats what every christian must do , reject fiction books and study historical jesus and know truth about him...right now christians believe in legend of christ...
"What is truth?" When it is whatever you want it to be it becomes belief. It may actually be truth, it may not, but until evidence piles deep enough to be considered objective proof it remains belief only.
This is NOT a religious forum, it is a forum open to the discussion of religion. It’s a subtle difference I know, but one which you have clearly missed.
This is a forum, as you said, to discuss religion and that means all aspects. If others don't like topics anything to do with religious topics, they need to leave.
Nope, if you dont like the responses of others to your comments and decide to berate them for their opinions and beliefs, then perhaps you should be the one to leave. Does your religion not teach tolerance, understanding and acceptance?
I believe what you are looking for is extortion. Obtaining something through force or threats. You know telling people to do as I do or burn in hell. It is my understanding that hell is referenced 162 times in the NT, and over 70 of these references were uttered by the Jesus.
Extortion is evil is it not?
I will not entertain much of a debate on this because it doesn't really interest me much.
Extortion would be the case IF there were actually another possibility were it not for the extortionist. If, on the other hand, the reality exists and what many choose to view as 'extortion' is actually a way out of something much, much worse (than what they think of as bad) which will happen no matter what the person does (were they not to accept the 'extortion demand') then it's not really extortion, is it?
I don't believe God is the extortionist, for no God exists. When people demand something from us for their own gain under the threat of pain and or harm that's extortion even if the imagined gain is a pat on ones own back.
If one was to imagine God to exist, one would have to ponder why he would create a scenario in which he has to threaten those who don't think he exist with hellfire when he simple could just make himself known. It seems to me that it would be more likely that this threat came from a man or men who were attempting to control a group of people much like the mafia does.
Of course I believe that God exists.
However, to simply continue your point...
He did make Himself known. Many times. People chose to act like He didn't even exist anyway. The problem with your logic is the assumption that if He simply made Himself known then everybody would immediately fall in line, and it just ain't so. In fact, many people would start immediately looking for almost any kind of reason why God showing Himself COULD NOT actually be God showing Himself.
Well of course that's what rational people would do however if that God does exist he should be able to show himself.
There is - of course - a more reasonable and rational alternative. i.e. that he didn't make himself known, so choosing to not believe is quite reasonable.
Is it reasonable to support the logic that he doesn't make himself known because nobody would believe him even if he did? The omni everything God can't figure out how to make himself known. So he chooses instead to punish those who don't think a book of fiction is fact, but as long as the murderers and drug dealers say sorry they're good.
Hear that noise? It's me banging my head on the desk.
So, what you're saying is that if God DID show Himself, then the only rational response is to start finding any explanation that would seem to say that God DID NOT show Himself?
Don't you think we should rule out a few things first. For instance the image of Jesus seems to appear in pictures people take of clouds in airplanes. Do was assume the image is real or do we check to see if the image was photoshoped (digital) or double exposed (film)? I can assure you I can put the image of Jesus on a cloud in about 10 seconds. And yet every few days someone posts a picture of Jesus in a cloud on Facebook stating that we must pass it on.
So yes, the only rational response to Jesus in a cloud is to examine for forgery.
I repeat, an omni everything God should know how to make himself known.
That completely sidestepped my point. I very specifically did NOT mention Jesus in the clouds, or the toast, or the side of the building. I'm saying that if Jesus were right here, corporeally, performing miracles right in front of us with no way to say, "That didn't happen," then a large number of people would STILL look for any reason to explain why, in fact, it didn't happen.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm NOT saying that Miracle Toast is an actual miracle. That's why it resides in a Las Vegas casino.
I get that Chris, I'm just showing you that one first has to look for answers, but an omni everything should be able to make everyone believe right. If he can't then he is not all powerful.
But to make everyone believe would infringe upon free will. It's like this, He can wave his hand and make everyone believe and do whatever he wants, but then we would no longer be us.. We would be mindless robots.
You're killing me. Are you saying those that believe are mindless robots? Why do some say God has revealed himself to them if as you say that would take their fee will away? Why would it take free will away anyway? We would still be free to disagree and do what we want. Your child knows you exist and will still sometimes do stuff he shouldn't.
Chris touched on it earlier. What we are meaning is that God (IF.... ) has the power to snap his finger and make you believe him with no doubts. I'm reluctant to use this example, but the closest I can think of is the jedi mind trick (of sorts). This is different than him showing up performing come act to try to convince you and letting you make the decision yourself. There is a difference between making you believe (as in doing something to convince you) and MAKING you believe (as in controlling you like a marionette). The first still allows you to make your own mind up.. The second MAKES your mind up for you
You know the answer to that as well as I do regarding some of them
I understand what you're saying, but I would point out, again, that failure to exercise power is not the same as not having it. If Jesus performed a miracle in front of you, or me, or anyone else, but allowed that person to make up their own mind, that does not mean Jesus lacks the power to 'make' that person believe. And there are those who wouldn't believe no matter what. Just as there are those who would rather believe, no matter what.
So if he doesn't have the power to make all believe he isn't all powerful by it's very definition.
That's called the scientific method, Chris. If one immediately jumps to the most illogical conclusion, then we are no better than Chicken Little. It appears that it is the believer that is immediately looking for any kind of reason to believe that a fictional character from an ancient book has appeared.
First two sentences, dead right. Could not possibly agree more.
Second two sentences, dead wrong. Merely prove my point.
If the scientific method (which was developed at least in large part by actual faithful believers) immediately jumps to the conclusion that God cannot exist, then that's not looking at things logically, that is simply trying to make the evidence support the conclusion. As opposed to the other way around.
I'm not saying that everyone will believe. What I am saying is that if Jesus were to appear to us now, irrefutably and showing true power, that there are those who will look for almost any reason other than that He's actually God to explain how it could be possible because they simply can't accept the evidence.
How does the scientific method immediately jump to the conclusion that god cannot exist? You cannot scientifically test for any god claim, there simply is NO evidence to follow. The few prayer studies that have been completed were dismal failures for faith.
Okay, I'm not saying that the scientific method would immediately jump to any conclusion at all. I'm sorry if I didn't state myself clearly.
What I said, and what I meant to say, was that there are people who will look for any reason why something they are predisposed to disbelieve cannot be happening. I am fully aware that this applies to all sorts of people, and they will label their search in many different ways, but those who don't want to believe in God even if angels were to dance on the head of a pin for all the world to see would say it was scientifically impossible.
But again, let me say that I do not think that the scientific method would jump automatically to the conclusion that there is no God.
So you don't think God has the power or ability to make everyone believe. Does that make him not all powerful? You have the power to make me believe you exist, but your God doesn't have that ability? Are you sure you are not just repeating what you've been told?
I can stand right in front of you and smack you repeatedly (not that I would), but you could still deny that it was happening.
I honestly don't know where you got that. Does God have the power to 'make' everyone believe? Of course He does. Do I think He exercises that power to the point where we are all basically robotized? Of course not. The failure to exercise power is not the same as the failure to actually have that power.
Well Claire, now that both the Olympics and the Paralympics are over will you know admit to being wrong about your prediction of terrorism during the Olympics?
He claimed to be inseparable from God. And He came to die for all mankind.
Some people didn't like it then, and they don't like it now.
Because they're envious of His power and they don't have the same Love in their hearts, nor the willingness to die for anyone, much less the whole of mankind. They tried to deflect from their own blasphemies by accusing Him of blasphemy; that's how they pushed for His crucifixion.
Same ol' song and dance since Lucifer tried to take over Heaven.
Guess what God did with that Devil and his followers? Well, we already know.
The only difference between the two groups of nay-sayers is that the Devil and his followers were/are angels who have no offer of redemption handed to them. The human nay-sayers did, and do, have a choice since Jesus died for them.
@brenda how r u...the most important word in your writeup is "claimed"....in human journey there have been many jesus and many such claims.....what to say about such god whose inseparable entity can be pushed by mere mortals for crucifixion ...I can understand frustration of such creator who could not control sins of his own creations and set better example for them and then made his own son commit suicide and then again rose him....wow....Oscars goes to jesus's dad for outstanding performance...
hi pisean282311, I'm alive and kickin', thank you for asking! I hope you are well also?
Actually, the most important word would be salvation. Perhaps I left that out, so I'll correct that right now! I simply thought it was obvious.
Jesus not only "claimed", but He PROVED Himself. Indeed, He went through the horrors of being publicly insulted, assaulted, and being crucified, dying on the Cross for your sins and mine and anyone else's who will accept Him as the Savior and God that He is. The final proof was, as you mentioned, that He arose!
Oscars for His performance? Pah. Oscars are for stars who yearn for money and fame. God deserves your Love. He desires your Love. He requires only your Love. Yet, somehow, that seems to be the very thing that people refuse to give.
@brenda so Jesus had to prove?...which means he was not as obvious as others who where considered god by their disciples...and how did he prove that?...by rising for death?...many rose before him in many stories...so what is unique in this story other than great imagination of writers?
The Love is unique. What other person would die for not only their friends' souls but their enemies' souls?
And indeed, the other "stories" of people rising from the dead aren't provable. Jesus's story is provable not only by eye-witnesses, but also by that bond of spirit that comes from God Himself---the ability for the Holy Spirit to confirm with our human spirits, an innate ability for the Maker to know HIs creation, and the ability of each person (given through the sacrifice of Jesus) to yearn to know their Creator.
@brenda thats one perception...another perception would be dying for one's own belief ...very common phenomena in humans....
Jesus wasn't just human. He was fully human but fully God at the same time. No human could've done what He did. A small thing for God to do in terms of His abilities; (consider that He created the world!) but a huge thing for any human to do; actually an impossible thing for any human to do. Jesus was the only One who was found capable and worthy to be that Sacrifice.
And....at some point in our lives we have to choose which "perception" to follow. One is not only common sense but also Spiritual sense. The others fall short.
@brenda i guess u havent read eastern religions...most have been god and human at same time....ya they where far more accomplished than jesus ...jesus achieved little in his life time and credit of expansion must be give to paul than jesus...but we would be drifting from topic which is was jesus ever guilty of evil?....what r ur views on that...was he guilty ever?
Of course he wasn't guilty.
He never sinned.
He was the only sinless person/Being who ever lived.
He took the punishment for sin, however, upon Himself, so that anyone can be given eternal Life if they so choose.
If you like, you may tell me about those "eastern religions" where any person claimed to have suffered and died for me personally and for you personally. I doubt you will find any, though. If there was one, tell me please. I'd like to hear about any "God/man" who claimed to suffer and die (and rise again!) for all "whosoevers" including me! I'd like to thank him/her for thinking of me. And can I talk to him/her and be sure they're who they say they are? Do they know every thought in my head and everything I do, and will they offer me eternal Life in the presence of the Creator of all things? Will they commune with me like my Lord does? Are they in tune with my heart so much that they can convince me of my sins yet reassure me that they died for my sins so that I'll go to heaven instead of hell? Wow. I think they'd have to show me some proof. I will compare them with the Lord. How's that? But indeed that is a losing battle, since there is no one who compares to Him; that we already know, and that we already have seen proof of throughout creation and history and Spiritual confirmation. And yes I've read some (not a huge amount, but enough) of those eastern religions to ascertain that they aren't based on worshipping the Creator.
@brenda i was answering ur claim that jesus was man and god at same time...it is not new concept...it existed since civilization came into being...
now coming to your argument...your point is based on that somebody was needed to suffer for human's sin...that premise itself is flawed...jesus died in vain because he was convinced about already existing context in those era...had he born today , he might have been saved by logical argumen against concept of sin...but he was born in disempowered jews where most where expecting god to intervene......i feel sorry for jesus and all who died in name of jesus...world would have been better off without jesus dying.....i would have loved to see harmless person like jesus to have lived whole life...he was cool guy and unconventional too...in today's world he would have been termed as liberal....
there have been many jesus like figures who died for their conviction....many would die in future too...
Say what you will, and believe what you will, but indeed Jesus did not die in vain. Only those who refuse to give their hearts to Him will die in vain, no matter how long they live on this earth. It is appointed for each person to die at some point; we will all have to face that fact some day. Jesus came to earth for one particular purpose---to offer eternal salvation to each person. He didn't need to live to a ripe old age on this earth; if He had wanted to, He could have, indeed! Instead, He chose to do what He was meant to do, and return to His rightful place in Heaven. I'm grateful that He made the way for me to go there too when my time comes. And you're mistaken if you think He no longer Lives! Because He is alive! His Spirit will never die. That's the Holy Spirit, inseparable from Jesus and the Father. For they are all God, and they Live.
As an atheist I have never gone through the Bible and looked for Jesus' being "wicked" or a "hypocrite" and I have yet to meet a single atheist who HAS done that.
Now there ARE people who will argue that Jesus isn't a very good moral teacher and thus can't be considered perfect. For example Jesus claims that if you love your family more than him you are not worthy of him (Matthew 10:37), not exactly the teachings of a perfect being. Jesus' turn the other cheek philosophy is also not very good advice in all situations.
There are also teachings that seem directly contradictory to each other, for example Jesus often espouses the belief that men should worry about their own sins and not judge others (worry about the log in your own eye, not the speck in your brother's eye). Those teachings seem to be suggesting responsibility for one's own sin and not casting stones against others. While in other parts of the Gospels and the New Testament it is Jesus' sacrifice that covers all sin, and responsibility for your sins falls away because of that sacrifice.
In my opinion the Biblical Jesus never does anything I would define as evil, but perfect, not really, and certainly not consistent.
Evils of the Biblical God, that's a different story.
Then you have haven't been on Hubpages very long.
Consider the first commandment: "You shall love the Lord with all your heart and with all your mind." The second is to love one neighbour as one loves oneself."
As you can see, you must put Jesus before your fellow man? Why? Because your neighbours did not die for you sins and cannot redeem you. Putting Jesus first means lessening the power of evil and evil causes suffering. Many families were in conflict because some people wanted to hold onto their Jewish beliefs and other members of the family wanted to follow Jesus. If one has divided loyalties, one cannot be a disciple of Jesus.
Turning the other cheek means simply not to seek revenge. Seeking revenge causes bitterness and can lead to things like murder, etc. It does not mean that one must tolerate evil. Jesus most certainly did not ignore the evil of the Pharisees.
Many people make the mistake in thinking that because Jesus died for the sin of man-kind then that means people aren't responsible for any wrong doing and don't sin anymore. Jesus dying for our sins means we have the opportunity to be forgiven for sin should we truly repent. We continue to sin and so the repentance and forgiveness happens again. It is our responsibility to reject sin by truly repenting when we have done wrong and to do our best with the help of God not to commit those sins again. Since we are all human, we are going to stumble at times.
So in death we can be saved from hell if we truly repent. Without true repentance, we cannot reunite with God.
I think it has a lot to do with a lack of understanding of the scriptures. Also, remember the text weren't written in English as everyone knows. The Gospel writers weren't perfect and could not always capture exactly the meaning of what Jesus was saying.
You mean evils of the OT God? Yes, that is a completely different sickening story.
You do know the Commandments are in the Old Testament - right?
Speaking of "lack of understanding."
Jesus said "you are either with me or against me." Jesus - being omnipotent - knew this would cause thousands of years of conflict and hatred. Ergo - Jesus is evil.
Can't really blame him - given his heritage.
Still - considering you have made up that first commandment and it actually says no such thing about loving your neighbor - I am beginning to wonder if you have actually read this book.
as Jews at the time were still under the law- ie:-Jesus was still alive. The Jews convicted him as a breaker of there interpretions of Gods' law as they interpreted it, evil was not considered and the Romans never conficted Jesus of anything, the decision was passed to the crowd (The Jews) if the story is true. So the basis for the question is a moot point posed by people trying to slam back at those who slam the Belief, but who have no idea why they pose the question except to apease there own ego's. Do we not have anything beter to do than this?
I propose that the "more useful" thing to do is look at what that crowd of people did, 2000 years ago and see if their actions have similarities in what we do today.
The details of what happened can never be known to us. We can only speculate, no matter how much theology any of us has studied. Any conclusion can only be conjecture.
Yet we know, each of us, from what goes on in our own brain and with what motivations, that emotions and desires drive our every move, our every thought, our every finger-pointing. When we refuse to acknowledge what goes on inside of us, at the point which Jesus it seems was addressing, we take that easy path of vindictiveness which showed up in the mob rule. That was why they put the man to death. They could not face up to their own truths. And when the gory spectacle of a crucifixion ensues, that is much more fun.
No different today.
According to the Christian bible, he was holy. He only ever helped and he did not do any wrong. He was persecuted for preaching about God and was nailed to the cross. Which makes me wonder a lot about the cross as a Christian symbol. I mean, it was mostly criminals that were nailed, so why is the symbol of a criminal, also the symbol of Christ. I, personally, don't believe in god, as I'm Wiccan, but I was raised Christian, so I know a bit.
I suppose it just reminds Christians of what He went through to save our souls. Some may find it offensive but I know demons hate crucifixes. That's all that counts.
How do you know that? Have you seen one, personally and with your own eyes? back away from one? Run from one? Be hurt by one?
Yeah, I've seen shape-shifting. I also had my cross consecrated. Recently I went into my church to pray for my friend for whom I'm organizing an exorcism. I had my cross with me. When I returned to the church office, a money bag flew off the desk of the secretary. She was sitting on the other side of the room. I was there when it happened. And my priest uncle has performed exorcism himself.
No, no, no. Consecrating a cross isn't seeing a demon afraid of it. A money bag falling off the table isn't seeing a demon afraid of a cross. A priest performing an exorcism and declaring the demon left isn't seeing a demon afraid of a cross.
You claim to know demons hate crosses (presumably because they damage them and they are afraid of crosses as a result) - when did you ever see such a thing? What did the demon look like?
Are you sure a wind did not cuss up and blew through a window. It seen to be christian experience demons and not unbeliever because we are already owned by the devil.
What is really the root of all evil - Money or Satan?
Has there ever been a exorcism caught on film?
Next time it happens, hire me, I'll film it because want to be the first.
I've had experiences with evil spirits. Bad experiences. I've always believed in spirits, and I've had non-believer friends who have had experiences as well. Of course, now they're believers. I personally don't believe anyone is "owned by the devil", just not as open minded as they could be. Again, these are my beliefs, and I am entitled to them. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. But, you can't say it's only Christians who experience this stuff.
How do you know for sure?
You don't see demons. With regards to my personal experience with demons and my cross, why do I prove it to you? I cannot. I was starting to get nightmares. I felt an evil presence. When I took my cross with me to a Maundy Thursday service, they went away. I didn't expect that.
Oh, silver works for keeping away evil too. As well as some herbs like sage. Also, I'm just wondering, why do you think it was the cross that sent them away? It could have just been coincidence. Maybe something else happened to send them away. You never know, there's always a possibility.
I've had near death experience where my nightmare felt like there were demons in action. It's all in your imagination and in most causes heavy drugs are involved. Everything in life and in human history was all create from our imagination. You just have an imaginary friend that you assume protects you.
Er... Me and my friends don't do drugs. I won't eliminate the possibility it was just my over active imagination, but imagination can't really leave scars on my body. I encountered a spirit, and it wanted me dead, so it tried to kill me. I've got scars on my arm, wanna tell me those are fake?
"Those who don't believe in magic, will never find it,"
- Roald Dahl
Same goes with everything else, if you don't believe and be open minded, you'll never find what you claim isn't real.
Magic and spiritual experience is just the unknown re veiled or manifested into our ego self. Spiritual worlds where you imagined demons or angels are manifested from your studies in the bible by words. Spirit world can not be known unless you have been there, you need to be dead first then come back to tell us about the experience.
Who am I to say dragons, monsters or fairies, are not real in our dreams. Unless unproven, some nightmare seem so real I've fallen out of bed and scared myself and thought the creature did it.. I know the feeling magic from being deeply in love or from being a professional artist for 4 decades mostly telling stories about fantasies and history. Every magic experienced can be repeated or understood in time on how it happen, then I know it is for real.
It's not imagination! It's real! It's just not in this plane of life. My faith keeps me going, I honestly don't give a crap if you don't believe, I don't care if you think it's imagination. If you believe it's imagination, then let me believe it's real! Let me have my imagination, you can have your closed-minded opinions.
The spirit world can be traveled to through different ways. Just to let you know.
Well, to me I know it is true. I am busy organizing an exorcism at the moment and I know only Jesus demons are very frightened of Him. My uncle himself has performed exorcisms in the past. He is a priest. It is not for nothing that Satanists revere the inverted cross.
The Jewish writers, even today, do not believe in hell. Of course mainstream Judism started brushing off the Old Testament as historical truth as far back as the 12th century.
Why Jesus is the most wicked man in the Bible Part I:
First of all, I want to thank Claire Evans for creating this forum and being open-minded and confident in her beliefs to allow them to be challenged. There are Christian Hubs on this site where if you challenge the beliefs of the author your comments will be deleted almost immediately, not surprisingly.
While I do consider the Bible and, most specifically, the Old Testament to be an immoral book, I reserve my harshes criticisms for Jesus of Nazareth or, as I much prefer, " Jesus, the wicked" from the New Testament. Here is an example of his madness and evil nature. King James Version of the Bible:
(Luke 14:26) 'If any man come to me and hate NOT his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'
What a wonderful example of morality this is. What a loving 'savior'. Really, few statements in the Bible are more immoral than this. What is more, it directly contradicts one of the few Ten Commandments worth knowing 'Honor thy Mother and Father'. How can any honest, moral, human with a shred of integrity want to follow this wicked man? The only excuse is that you are either incredibly immoral, stupid or you have been brainwashed to believe Jesus of Nazareth is a loving man.
Brian, did you not bother to read my rebuttal of this?
The NT was not written in English. It was written in Greece so this is a translation issue. The Greek AND Hebrew equivalent to hate is love less.
Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=781
Here's the Hebrew explanation:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Talmudim, 'students' of Jewish rabbis were taught to place their affections for their teachers higher than that for their fathers, for:
"his teacher has priority, for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher, who has taught him wisdom, brings him into the world to come".
But 'hatred'? Surely that is taking loyalty to your teacher too far - even if your teacher is God in human form. For another commandment is that of honouring ones parents - which itself cannot be contradicted. Indeed, this verse in Luke has caused much anguish and pain between zealous Christian sons or daughters and their parents, who believing they were expressing their devotion to Jesus, had no regard or worse still, hatred, for their parents.
But what we have here is another Hebrew problem. Biblical Hebrew lacks the necessary language to exactly define the comparative sense, i.e., 'more than' or 'less than'. Instead it tends to express two things which may be comparatively of different degree like 'first' and 'second' as extremes such as 'first' and 'last'. In this way love and hate whilst appearing as opposites may in fact be related but lesser terms such as 'love more' and 'love less'.
"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
A Jewish man was not allowed to abandon a 'hated' wife's son's rights of inheritance. But more than this, the Deuteronomy passage describes favouritism between two wives, not absolute love and hatred, for the man bears children by both. Hence, different Bible versions struggle with the phrase "hated" and some adopt "unloved" or "disliked", as softer phrases. However, the Hebrew word used in the second phrase is sânê' (Strong’s #8130) which in its more than 140 uses is always translated by 'hate' or by words indicating 'foe' or 'enemy'. Literal versions cannot soften the apparent invective, only an idiomatic understanding or paraphrase can explain the metaphor.
The Hebrew sânê' is the opposite of love which could mean 'non-election'. This contrast is the same in Genesis 29:31 between Leah ('hated' senû’âh from sânê’) and Rachel, who in the previous verse is described as "loved more than Leah", a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate. Compare also the passages in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 above; 1 Samuel 1:5; Proverbs 30:23; 2 Samuel 19:6; and even Exodus 20:3 which speaks of preferring others gods as equivalent to hating God (cf. Matthew 6:24 on serving God and mammon, loving one and hating the other).
The Jewish midrash on Exodus describes God as hating the angels, and not just the fallen ones. It does not mean he dislikes Michael and Gabriel! It means that he chooses to give man the Torah, rather than the angels:
"By three names is this mount known: The mountain of God, Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai. . . . Why The mountain of God? (Exodus 18:5). Because it was there that God manifested His Godhead. And Sinai? Because [it was on that mount] that God showed that He hates the angels and loves mankind." (Exodus Rabbah 51.8, Soncino edition)
There is actually a Hebrew wordplay here, for Sinai sounds like the Hebrew for hate, although it begins with a different Hebrew letter and may mean 'thorny'. Similarly, Malachi speaks of God's preference for Jacob over Esau:
"... yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau..." (Malachi 1:2-3)
But Esau, like Ishmael instead of Isaac, was not hated absolutely, only "rejected" as the Aramaic targum (paraphrase) prefers to render it. In Aramaic sanah can mean 'to hate' and 'to separate', so the gospels could be saying separate yourselves from your parents if you want to follow me. This is a possible interpretation, but still against Jewish and biblical culture which is very supportive of family. Apart from Jesus' 'separating' and staying behind in the temple when he was younger he was a very dutiful son."
Jesus was saying that He must be put first before His parents. People must love their parents less than Him.
This can be backed up by:
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:37)
And Brian, is Jesus more wicked than Moses who says virgins out to be raped and non virgins killed?
Brian, I just have this to say.
If that's the 'wickedest' thing you can come up about Jesus, you're reaching. I mean, c'mon, at most that shows him to be arrogant and self-centered, but it also shows him giving others the choice as to whether or not to follow him.
The very statement begins with the word "IF."
It's a stretch, man.
Jesus guilty of evil?
As Yehoshua of Nazareth, no.
For a great portion of my 60+ years, I thought Jesus whipping the money lenders was a bit over the top, but now I know differently. He did it out of supreme love, because it prepared the way for his sacrifice. Also, it sent a message that no one should stand in the way or distract from salvation, especially in the temple.
But did the child of God (soul, true self, Holy Ghost) who was Jesus, do evil in an earlier life? Perhaps.
There is some indication that Jesus may have been King David -- the most beloved son of God. David went after another man's wife. Tsk, tsk. And David had many hundreds of years to get over his crimes. When the spirit who was Jesus came to Bethlehem, he was fully aware.
Elijah, on the other hand, had lived a very righteous life, but when he came back as John the Baptist, he had forgotten the most important element of his mission -- preparing the way for Jesus. He became a stumbling block to Jesus by his forgetfulness, not only that he was Elijah returned, but that he had been meant to prepare the way for and to support Jesus. Instead, while he was in prison, he sent his own disciples to ask Jesus if he was the one.
@lone if jesus would have been born today he would have been communist or socialist...usa cant survive without money lenders ...jesus was doing something out of love or out of his ignorance?
You missed the point. The money lenders were extorting money out of people who just wanted to make a humble offer to the Lord and they were poor. It was blasphemy and cruel to the people.
Rubbish. They were not lenders - they were money changers who held the only coin acceptable to pay taxes with - the silver shekel. Nothing to do with humble offerings to the Lord.
With all due respect..
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding ….
the people were traveling great distances for their yearly visit to Jerusalem, as was their custom, in order to offer their sacrifices unto the Lord, Too far to actually bring their livestock,sheep, doves etc.; so they would buy these things when they arrived. This practice may have been following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.
The animals being sold were substandard, and the “money changers” were cheating their customers. The custom had turned into a money making carnival type of event. This so called temper tantrum which Jesus exibited was what one might say the last straw for the Pharisees which forced their hand. They had to do something to show the people who was in charge. Jesus was forcing their hand.
The money changers had nothing to do with paying Roman taxes. I may be totally wrong ??? but is my understanding of the situation.
Just as a matter of interest - where did you get your version of the story?
I do not recall any particular source for my opinion. As in most of my opinions I might have come to this conclusion all on my own. You know ... I guess I may have made it up all on my own. The way I put things together.
I was not aware that Roman tax collection was cooridinated in anyway with the Pass Over?
I take it you did not bother reading the link I gave you? Please read that for an explanation. But - thanks for being honest - that seems to be the way an awful lot of people come to their conclusions about what the bible says.
I did read that link and it was very interesting. But I didn't see where tax collection to Rome was connected with the Pass over.
When I read anything including the bible, I come to my own conclusions as to what it is saying. I don't need someone else telling me what was meant when it says this or that.
This is why I disagree with much of what clergy is teaching. They teach what they were told to teach regardless of what is actually written.
It never mentions Passover. Nor does it mention tax collection to Rome.What does that have to do with the link I gave you exactly?
Most people reach their own conclusions as to what the bible is saying. That is why you have 44,000 different denominations.
They were trading within the temple so most definately ,it was EVERYTHING to do with Gods house
Naughty naughty Mark ,you know better than this.
Where'd you get this reincarnation stuff from? John didn't forget anything. The angel Gabriel revealed to John's father, Zacharias, that that John would fulfill Malachi 4:6, stating that he would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Zacharias never told John that he was Elijah because it was not the case.
So what does "in the spirit and power of Elijah" mean? Jesus meant that John came to fulfill the same role Elijah did and that was to call for Israel to repent.
Also, Elijah was said never to have died. Therefore John could not have been a reincarnation of him.
What that has to do with anything? We were talking about Jesus turning over the moneychangers tables which I thought had everything to do with the yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem. I wasn't aware that the moneychangers were camped out in the temple at any other time. (???)
I think that most people come to their own conclusions only after they have accepted as fact certain false conclusions which they were told certain passages were saying , which they don't.
Like building their own house ; the way they want it, on a cracked foundation.
Yes - this is why your religion causes so many fights.
Not interested in learning about the money changers then? Musta been wot us sed first innit?
Pity really, because it actually applies today. If you can be bothered to actually read the link I gave you - you will understand.
I don't understand exactly what in my comment that you have arguement with.
I don't disagree with anything which you said. I just don't see the corrilation with tax collecting with the days before the Pass over.
I do think that when the last Jewish revolt was put down in 135 AD and Hadrian attempted to erase that Hebrew nation from the face of the earth, religion began a period of metamorphis which lasted over 200 years. I also think that the RCC established a NEW foundation upon which all religions from that day forward must conform. And yes! this causes a lot of conflict! Exactly as was foretold in the book of Revelation.
Self fulfilling drivel sadly. I wonder why you cling to it so.
Read the article again. When was the TEMPLE tax collected?
Don't you think that we do ourselves a grave injustice when we "Think" that we have all the answers? Neither of us have all the answers!
Really? How do you know what I have exactly? In any case - I never said any such thing. I just offered you an explanation for Jesus' wrath at the money changers. But - it did not say the majik words you needed to hear or fit in with your previous preconceptions that you made up for yourself.
I think you do yourself a grave injustice every time you accept the bible the way you do. You were not interested in learning something - this is the injustice you do yourself really. But - that is what your religion teaches you to do - isn't it?
I don't know who you are doing the greatest injustice, me or yourself in "THINKING" that you know these things which you just spouted off with
I "THINK" that you didn't understand what I was saying as much as much as You "Think" that I didn't understand what you were saying.
I also "think" that we don't "KNOW" as much as we "think" we do .
Spouted off with? OK - fair enough - I will not try and show you anything new in future. Odd - because this is one of the keys to understanding the early development of your church - all the way to the destruction of the Templars and the creation of the modern banking system. I understood what you were saying just fine. This was not a Roman tax.
Please don't include me in your sweeping statements. Continue to wallow in your fulfilled prophecies as you are supposed to.
This was not a Roman tax.
That is all that I was saying in the first place.
No - this is what you said:
I never mentioned Roman tax - neither did the article I linked to.
Well I guess that it depends upon which articles we have read. My understanding of the temple tax was that.
One place may say that the temple tax was due a month before Pass Over and that Jesus paid his.. another says that there were offices set up through out the region. another says that it began after 70 AD. another.
I will admit that I am still a bit confused. Too many different articles saying almost the same thing and yet something totally different.
Well - as you know - I hate quoting the babble, but maybe this will clear it up for you:
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. 13 Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel,[a] according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the Lord. 14 All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the Lord. 15 The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the Lord to atone for your lives. 16 Receive the atonement money from the Israelites and use it for the service of the tent of meeting. It will be a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord, making atonement for your lives.” Exodus 30:11-16
That is one which I was familar with, but I thought that it had to be paid the month before the pass over. As I said before, I wasn't "aware" that this was still being collected at the time Jesus entered the temple and overthrew the tables (a month later) Cause there is said to have been outposts scattered through out the region for that purpose.
I think Jesus is one of the greatest role models that ever lived. I don't know if he did evil, and I don't care. His words are a contribution great enough to forever eclipse any shortcomings. I do believe that this need to perceive him as less than perfect is not simply human nature.
Although we appear to have an inborn need to tear down others, in order to build ourselves up; I think some within our society also use criticism of the story of him as a scapegoat out of frustration and fear of the deification of Mohammed. Which isn't, in my mind, unjustified. And, were he alive today I think he would not only understand the angst that drives it, but agree with it.. He went out of his way to make it clear he didn't want to be deified. Probably, because he was smart enough to see the dangers it can cause.
Yes. He stole fizzy lifting drinks and he farted in the face of his own Jesus image! Jesus also ate all the Childrens Easter eggs because he said he created that special occasion for chocolate lovers around the world and he drinks his own Jesus juice!
There was the time when he killed all the poor innocent little pigs. And, probably financially devastated their owner.
The idea of a divine Jesus is a preposterous one at best and there is no reason to believe he actually existed (although I personally believe a man named Jesus who declared himself a prophet did exist) as the evidence is so thin, hysterical and obviously cobbled together. Furthermore, there is absolutely zero proof about his claim to be the son of the great murderous dictator in the sky. Remember, prophets during the times of before and after Jesus were a dime a dozen and continue today. What is more, if Jesus was not the son of God, then surely his teachings are not only immoral, but he would have to be considered an evil and wicked man. To instruct his followers to believe in everything I say or go to hell or heaven; leave off their families; take no thought for the morrow. And here is why you've got to believe in me - because my mother never had sex with anyone and that proves the truth in what I say. Ridiculous!
Look, I am willing to grant it all - I am willing to grant the immaculate conception, then the virgin birth, then the resurrection and the annunciation and the assumption. I am willing to grant all of it, sure, why not? It still does not prove the truth of the proposition that you should take no thought for the morrow - the central doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth - no investment, no thrift, no care for your children, that you should abandon your family and just follow me. A ridiculous and immoral proposition and one that C.S. Lewis very cleverly and very honestly for a believer says that it means Jesus must have either been a maniac, a sick man, an evil man, or he must have believed the world was coming immediately to an end and he was commanded to announce this to the deluded, bronze age inhabitants of Palestine. Because if he didn't believe his words were divinely mandated then his words would not have been inaccurate or false they would have been wicked. A man who concocted a very human, intelligible, very pitiable, practice of fraud that may have worked on stupefied peasants in the greater Jerusalem area but should have no power to influence the people of today. Instead, we should be studying and furthering the wonderful thoughts, methods, systems and noble ideas of a man like Socrates who never prefaced his words with childish, insecure threats of eternal torture or paradise if we did not believe and follow him.
Brian, you clearly WANT to believe Jesus is wicked for you have no merit to think so. You agree with me because you ignored my rebuttal. How you can think Jesus is more immoral than Moses who instructed murder and rape is beyond me.
Why did Jesus speak about hell? When people sin and unrepent they separate themselves from God. Hell is the separation of God and I'm not talking about the God in the Old Testament. Why would Jesus die for the of the world and go to hell Himself if He was so eager to toss people into hell? That indicates He did everything in His power to help us avoid it. People send themselves to hell so why can't Jesus warn us of the consequence of sin? Are you not going to warn someone of the consequence of murdering, for example?
When Jesus said, "Follow me", He did not necessarily mean that in a physical sense. I mean, can you expect the lame to follow Him everywhere? I follow Jesus but not in a physical sense obviously.
As for taking no thought for tomorrow, what He meant was that don't worry about things that are out of our hands. It does not mean we do nothing and expect hand outs. It means we do everything we can for ourselves and leave the rest to God. Many people worry about the future especially about finances. God says don't worry about that if you have done everything you can. He will always provide.
Deep down you are threatened by Jesus.
Very good answer. However, there is something wrong with this story geographically. The oldest Greek manuscripts (Mark) say this miracle took place in the land of the Gerasenes (no lake there). If this is the case, the pigs would have had to run 31 miles. That's impossible because the tenders of the pigs would never known what had happened to the pigs.
When the author of Matthew read Mark's version, he saw the impossibility of Jesus and the gang disembarking at Gerasa (which, by the way, was also in a different country, the so-called Decapolis). Since the only town in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee that he knew of that started with G was Gadara, he changed Gerasa to Gadara. But even Gadara was five miles from the shore - and in a different country. Later copyists of the Greek manuscripts of all three pig-drowning gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) improved Gadara further to Gergesa, a region now thought to have actually formed part of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.
If we want to follow Matthew and place the exorcism at Gadara, let us see what happened to the Gadarenes in the Jewish War of Josephus:
“Vespasian sent Placidus with 500 horse and 3000 foot to pursue those who had fled from Gadara,... (5) Placidus, relying on his cavalry and emboldened by his previous success, pursued the Gadarenes, killing all whom he overtook, as far as the Jordan. Having driven the whole multitude up to the river, where they were blocked by the stream, which being swollen by the rain was unfordable, he drew up his troops in line opposite them. Necessity goaded them to battle, flight being impossible... Fifteen thousand perished by the enemy’s hands, while the number of those who were driven to fling themselves into the Jordan was incalculable; about two thousand two hundred were captured. A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen (6) This blow was the greatest that had befallen the Jews, and appeared even greater than is was; for not only was the whole countryside through which their flight had lain one scene of carnage, and the Jordan choked with dead, but even the [Dead Sea] was filled with bodies, masses of which were carried down into it by the river.” War 4. 7. 4-6
Again the Jews are driven into the water by the Romans and thousands are drowned. We should ask, did the people of the East herd swine? There is no record of this being a contemporary practice in the area. Perhaps in Europe, but not Syria or Judea. Note when Placidus captured the livestock of the Gadarenes it consisted of asses, sheep, camels, and oxen. No swine! Some might say, “of course not, Jesus drove them to destruction.” This begs the question of the near forty years between the destruction of the Gadarene swine by Jesus, and the Roman destruction of the Gadarenes in 67. There was plenty of time for the Gadarenes to raise another ‘herd of swine’.
Read more here:
I also got a good explanation from an atheist site believe it or not.
"The first act of his ministry among the Jews was casting out a demon; the first act of his ministry among the Gentiles would be to cast out a horde of demons. Jesus is faced with an unknown number, but probably several thousand (a “Legion” was major unit of the Roman army consisting of four to six thousand men) in one or two men (in Mark we have just one man but in Matthew there are two men).
Because the spirits were “unclean,” it probably would have been regarded as poetic justice for them to be sent off into “unclean” animals. Traditionally Christians have read this passage as representing the beginning of the purification of Gentile lands because both unclean animals and unclean spirits were banished to the sea which Jesus had already demonstrated his power and authority over.
It’s arguable, though, that this story may have been more properly read as a parable about the unwanted presence of the Roman Legions. They, of course, would not have wanted to be sent out of the country but many Jews would have wanted to see them driven into the sea."
Considering that swine herding was not a known practice there, I believe that this Jesus exorcism story was a metaphor or parable for the war on the Gadarenes. Gadarenes were also gentiles and were considered swine.
Hi Every one.
I could not believe this because the Jesus was only the messenger of Allah and truly all the myths are wrong. Perhaps there is another thing, The Adam is the Father of all of us, whenever he passed away from this world then his messages also wrapped up same is the case with other messengers also. so We must have to believe that Jesus was Just Messenger of Allah
Claire Evans, Moses was commanded by God in the Old Testament to commit the acts you described. As a Christian I am surprised you are attacking Moses for clearly doing the work of God - isn't that what a good Christian is supposed to do? The Bible certainly does not condemn Moses' actions. Or was this another translation gone wrong, too? Perhaps you can use that excuse to defend any attack on your great dictator in the sky or that false prophet Jesus Christ? No, I stand by my claim that Jesus Christ is wicked.
Who is the God in the Old Testament? The Father of Jesus whom it completely contradicts? God cannot contradict Jesus as they are one.
Consider Jesus came to earth to dispel the lies about God. Why would Jesus say those who live by the sword, die by the sword when Moses was constantly killing? Why does God in the OT contradict Jesus?
Did you know that the Old Testament doesn't actually refer to God but the gods? That's according to the literal translation of the Old Testament.
If you want to know what I'm talking about, watch..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … CJxw1wDtoq
Claire, it is easy to decide to separate text into sections you accept and parts you don't. Unfortunately, if you claim part of it is a lie, you have to accept it all as a lie. Jesus was a Jew. He spoke to the Jews. What he referenced as scripture was the exact same Torah used today. The God he claimed kinship with is the God of the Old Testament.
Contradictions abound, but you have to resolve them with a better argument. The one you are presently using does not hold water.
Oh really now? Since when does pointing out lies in the Old Testament make the whole Bible a lie? If that is the case, you ought to toss out ALL history books!
So quote where Jesus supports murder, rape of virgins, etc, stoning of people, etc. You don't think I dismiss the whole of the OT, do you?
You know He severely contradicted the Mosaic law. Why not think logically?
But why try and reason with me? Didn't you say to Motown that I cannot be reasoned with?
Claire - I see your problem. You think the bible is a history book, when it is in fact a majik book. Throw out 50% of it because it contradicts the other 50% by all means, but don't fool yourself it is real.
When is the bomb going off in London again?
"Some when after the Olympics"?
To anyone who believes Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God:
If a man came to your door today and told you he was the son of god would you believe him? Probably not. I think the majority of people who consider him crazy and rightfully so. However, you believe in a man who lived 2000-years ago who you've never met and whose very existence is questionable at best. A man who claims to be the son of a god, who can preform 'miracles', is born of a virgin mother and rose from the dead and if you dont believe him you will be tortured for all eternity. It is preposterous, immoral, against logic, common sense and insults human integrity. You might as well believe in unicorns, the world is flat and the planet Jupiter made from cheese. The only reasons for believing this is incredible stupidity or you have been brainwashed.
I'd ask why He claimed that to be so.
Those in hell believe in Him alright. If one can still reject Jesus once knowing the truth one day then they choose their own path in life.
But seriously, we all know you think Jesus is wicked even though your argument is poor. You have absolutely no interest in hearing what others have to say and to finding the truth. You want to believe He is wicked. What about Mohammed? Can you tell us how wicked he was?
Its not a matter of caring what others think. Christianity is immoral and people who believe in it wish to be a slave. It is a master-slave relationship and not only is it immoral but it is insulting to one`s human integrity. I dont mean to say because one is Christian one is immoral - I have friends who are Christians and they are wonderful people. However, I am completely against totalitarianism and superstitions and Christianity represents both of these horrors. The world would be a much better place to live in if man could throw off the shackles of religion and stop suffering the poison it delivers .
I have no interest in speaking about that murderous, pedophile mohammed. It is much more interesting to speak about Socrates or George Orwell whose works are much more beautiful, moral and intriguing to read then the clumsy, blood thirsty stories from the Bible.
Brian, ought I take you seriously when you continually ignore my rebuttals? Jesus said He came to serve and that love will set us free. Does that sound like a master-slave relationship? If I in even way thought God was trying to control me, I'd leave Christianity. Having a relationship with God is being a team.
You automatically assume that Jesus is the son of God depicted in the OT despite me providing you with a link proving otherwise which you clearly did not watch. You aren't interested in the truth. You are interested in YOUR truth.
Tell me, is Mohammed and Islam not worth talking about in light of the Prophet film and the deaths that have ensued? Last time I checked, no one has been killed for insulting Jesus.
I think you should also direct your anger at Judaism as the OT is their primary scriptures. After all, that murderous God defended the Jews.
Did he? Where was your God when the Germans were murdering Jewish and Slavic children at Auschwitz by the thousands? If God had the power to stop thier sufferings and did not act then he is wicked. If he did not have the power then he is impotent and pathetic. You know, if God cast Lucifer out of heaven then I am starting to think Lucifer might be the moral, caring one after all. It only makes sense.
I started a forum thread on where was God during the Halocaust. I mean, if he saved the Jews in the OT, why not during the Halocaust?
The answer is because God never did smite Israel's enemies. It never happened. For God to stop the suffering in the world, we need to forfeit our free will and worship Him and not be able to make decisions of our own. I just laugh at the thought of you doing that. Would you like to give your free will up to a God so that evil won't exist?
Therefore with free will, the responsibility falls on OUR shoulders. With free will, man inflicts suffering on others because people are at the mercy of other's free will. I know that if I go through suffering there is a reason for it because I am Christ-committed. There was a time where I didn't see that purpose and resented God for it but looking in retrospect things became so clear.
Never underestimate the power of the devil though. People think that God is the only omniscient and omnipresent being. It is not true. Satan has all the capabilities God has except that he cannot defeat Jesus because of the power of love.
The question could be posed: Where was God when Jesus was crucified? He was nowhere to be found because the result of sin pushed God away.
When we do the tiniest of sins, we contribute to the power of the devil. That includes you. You falsely accuse Jesus of being wicked thus give Satan more power. We have all done it. The world revolves around Satan. That is why evil is so prevalent. Because God loves us so much to give us our space, it is up to us to reject evil and follow Him.
How can one truly appreciate goodness without knowing suffering? How can we appreciate the rain without the drought? The best people are those who have suffered and have been spiritually enriched by it. Those who know no suffering are of no use to anyone because they cannot identify with the pain of the world.
Everything a person or being as ever suffered, God has suffered that pain Himself.
And don't fall for Satan's nonsense that Lucifer was the good guy. What is he doing to stop the evil in the world? Those who worship him are those who start wars and are evil. In fact, you ought to start condemning Lucifer for being wicked.
To be honest, Claire Evans, the fact God did not intervene during the Holocaust is just more evidence that God is in fact not real. Surely if he did exist and possess that moral sentiment Christians are always professing he has, contrary to the Bible, then surely he would have stepped in immediately. Well, unless God was on the side of Hitler - which is not unbelieveable as not only did Hitler claim repeatedly in Mein Kampf he was doing 'God's work' but the Catholic Church openly supported the Nazi's. Regardless, I do believe it is more evidence God does not exist. As for Lucifer, he is just another character in the fable.
You have this horrible habit of just ignoring someone's explanation. I'm asking you, do you want to give up your free will to God? Yes or no? If not, who are you to say God should intervene in the Halocaust? So you want God to give you free will but you also want Him to take it away when He deems fit?
Imagine if God stepped in all the time when evil occurs. That means we have to comply with what He commands because He'd control the world.
Tell me, if God intervened, can you give me an explanation who it would be done? Make all the Nazis drop dead? How about the US? What countless suffering they have caused. Would it be appropriate for all in the US government to drop dead? What about Iran? The whole would would drop dead for we all sin and that includes you. You'd have a crai about that.
Bush claimed he was doing God's will when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. Wow, that must mean God approves of that. Hitler claimed to be a Christian for political reasons.
As for the Vatican supporting Hitler, just more proof that the Vatican is Satanic.
You also assume that if God isn't moral then God doesn't exist. Logical fallacy.
The best possible oxymoron anyone could come up with: :
Not so sure. I would hazard a guess that this person/concept/myth is probably responsible for more deaths and suffering than any other idea in history.
True but you can't possibly hold him personally responsible
How strange - I thought you guys thought Jesus was an omnipotent, omnipresent, prescient god? In which case - He is indeed personally responsible.
Which is it?
Can we hold any man responsible for the actions of his commands to his followers?
Mark Knowles, you forgot omni-wicked god in your description of Jesus.
Just suppose that God did intervein and every person that died in all of the wars in the 20th century alone didn't die! Not to mention through out history.
How many people would that be ? Maybe 100 trillion? (or more) Suppose they all had four children.
How many people died from starvation? What if God interveined and they didn't die but instead lived and had four children?
What if God took death of every kind out of the equation? Before long there wouldn't be a blade of grass growing anywhere because someones foot would be standing on every piece of ground.
Just look at the individual person. Millions of cells are dieing continuously while millions are being produced. It doesn't matter HOW these cells die, but it would matter if they didn't.
Production would eventually come to a standstill. Life without death isn't life
And that's just a cold hard fact.
The very Breath one breaths is the Breath of God and Jesus is Lord the Son of God .. Period! I dont support this from any angle. Jesus came to show us the Way to His Father God and was a total sacrifice here on earth. That was a sweet plan of Restoration according to the Book of Jeremiah 291:11. God is Sovereign all by Himself. And He knows what He does. And what He does is always Perfect and Eternal.
....wow! Never would I have guessed that there were so many professional on the bible. This argument is as stale as stale comes. To know who wins, unfortunately we are going to have to wait until we all die. Claire, I'm assuming you have read your bible, if so, hold it dear to your heart. You ought to know that as a Christian you shouldn't be involved in heated debates. As for the non-believers, they are content with their remarks. To deny Christ, is easy, to walk with Him and live by His words, is what is difficult. His number one, Peter "the Rock", denied Him....three times at our Lord's lowest time. His three chosen disciples, slept in the Garden of Gethsemane when He asked to them to stay awake so they would not fall into temptation. The "human" side of Christ was shown when he begged for the cup to be lifted, He knew His end was near. Any one of us would have trembled the same way knowing we had to die for everyone, especially those that sh*t on you and mock you.
This argument will never be won.
In fact this Hub would have been more interesting if it were on the steps to rebuilding a carburetor...men vs women. Instead, we have grown folks arguing like reality shows, silly.
Claire follow if aren't already, my girl Rina Pinto, that woman is on fire for our Lord. yet, you never see her in battles with others, because she knows where she stands. Just like everyone else on this feed, they are convinced they are also correct. So be it.
Lotsa love & respect
My Friend in Christ Jesus benisan85745 absolutely right said if i am on fire, therefore it makes no sense in fighting out a baseless question about Jesus being guilty. Christians on the highest level of their Journey after Red Sea crossing will never be the same. .They do understand how they were lead by His Holy Spirit. The unbelievers will ultimately say a thing or too about Jesus .. anyways its the Power of our Lord Jesus who would draw them nigh unto Him who has called us all from the darkness. That is why at the time of the Creation - our Sovereign God Yahweh said " Let there be LIGHT and there was LIGHT and He saw that THIS LIGHT was GOOD! .. AMEN? God, through His Son Lord Jesus and Their Sweet Holy Spirit will deffinately lead them (Unbelievers) to the Greener pastures - The Garden of Eden. The Word of God says' I have come to save all so that They may have this LIGHT and the Light of this WORLD is JESUS His Son.
Love you All in Jesus name!
Jesus was involved with heated debates. A lot of them with the Pharisees I might add. Wow, the things He said to them! Yes, I am a real hothead when it comes to defending my Lord Jesus Christ. What you may see as a stale-mate may actually make someone else think when debating these things.
Not all unbelievers are confident with their remarks. We are behind a computer screen so we can't read their body language.
I wonder if you realize how sad it appears to an outsider that your "Lord" is so feeble as to need some one to defend it? Certainly made me think.
Excuse me gentleman or lady.. who so ever you may be .. forgive cause i dont know the gender you belong .. let me remind you that Jesus does not want any one to defend HIM .. He is a Sovereign Lord and God of this whole universe, heaven & earth. Instead Jesus is the defender of our Faith and the finisher of our Faith .. people .. get your minds & hearts straight .. letting your minds works for the devil the father of lies is all he wants you to focus on .. letting you keep from worshiping your Maker!. Note: - Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord .. Hallelujah & Amen!
@pinto u talk like iranian president...evey knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess when mahdi is back that allah is lord...wow...
God does not have to prove Himself right before men.. .. i think the very breath you breath is from Him .. simple ... it explains it all that God is Sovereign and is in total control.!
Did you really just say God is in total control? Really? This is the world he planned? This is what he wanted? Hunger, disease, war.
Absolutely .. Your stepping faith into Cannan's land will reward you good in all ways and your stepping into Egypt will fetch you all the diseases, war, plagues and so on ..
Okay, show me which people you feel have it right, these people should be free of disease and war according to you.
Dear pisean282311 .. well, you can laugh as much as you can sir.. but i am sure .... the inner you being is convicted when you read my message .. I submit you under the Lordship of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that you be lead soon and receive your salvation .. God Bless you even more and give you the revelation of HIS identity .. Be Blessed always in Jesus name ..!
He planned hunger and disease? What kind of God is he?
Your God allows Satan to rule. Which God is better?
Nope, man allows Satan to rule. If we all followed Jesus, Satan couldn't possibly rule. The ball is in our court. Unless you want God to force you to worship Him of course? I can't picture you handing your free will to Jesus.
Either your God is not powerful enough to defeat Satan or he doesn't want to.
I would just like God to reveal himself. I'm not going to spend my life worshipping a fairy tale.
Oh, so you'd like your free will taken away from you? Yes or no? God loves us so much He gave us the option whether to serve Him or not and unfortunately most have chosen to serve Satan. That doesn't mean one is a Satan worshipper but they choose to indulge in wrong-doer which empowers Satan. Yes, He is powerful enough to defeat Satan. Jesus rose from the dead. It's just that we perceive that He hasn't because of our finite minds. We are constrained by time. Armaghedon has already happened in another dimension. It just hasn't manifested here yet. How else would Revelation be set in stone if it hasn't happened yet?
God reveals Himself to those who really want to accept Christ. If He sees restraint in the heart, then He cannot reveal Himself.
If the future is "set in stone", then you don't have free will.
Wow, so many contradictions, so little time. I'm not sure what free will has to do with God letting Satan win unless you think God placed Satan here to test us?
Do we have free will if God has already seen the future? If Armaghedon has already happen our life's decision have been made and the future is set in stone. You just can't have it both ways.
Satan hasn't won. He has been defeated already. Heard of Revelation? Who said God placed Satan anyway? They both exist separately and so neither placed the other either anywhere. Satan is not a creation of God and so one existed before the other. This earth is a place of opposites. We have a protons and elections in an atom. The one didn't exist before the other. The earth has adapted to both good and evil.
Do you believe we don't have free will? Say a psychic predicts what is going to happen in my life. Does it mean I never exercised my free will to fulfill that prophecy? Does it mean my actions were dictated? It's one thing to dictate someone's behaviour to make a prophecy be fulfilled and another to just know the outcome of one's actions. Armageddon is the result of man's actions out of his own free will. If man out of his free will had served Jesus then Satan would not dominate this world.
I don't know if we have free will. I do know the stars are aligned. We can predict with certainly the orbits of planets. I do know it's a conundrum for Christians to have a God that can see the future and still tell us we have free will. It's also a problem that your God supposedly created everything, but now you are saying he was not alone and angels existed along with him. I do know that none of this makes any sense and I feel sorry for you.
Of course we have free will. Is someone holding a gun to your head while you are writing this?
God did not create everything. Satan is a co-creator. I didn't say angels weren't created but Satan. Satan is not an angel. He was a separate entity right from the start.
I'm sorry you don't understand this. You needn't feel sorry for me. God gives me the peace nothing in the world can.
Where do you get your information? Satan is a co-creator? Your stories are so different then the lies I was told from the bible.
You Claire are not at peace.
Think about this: What is the victory of Christ if He defeated one of God's creation who turned out to be a Frankenstein? Can one honestly say that Satan could once have been the best friend of God? To love God means complete acceptance of love. It is impossible to turn into a being who is the source of all evil and hates love and is completely terrified of love. Hate and suffering is needed for Satan to survive.
No rebellion could happen in heaven for no evil thoughts can exist there. Heaven is the complete lack of evil.
Satan has all the characteristics of a deity. He is omniscient and omnipresent. The problem is that many people don't realize his power.
As God created the angels so did Satan create demons. There are other beings he created we are not aware of.
Why does man resemble a mixture of God and Satan. We have the capacity to do good and evil. Many mirror characteristics of God like laying down their life for others and others are capable of extreme evil. Since Satan is a desecrater, somehow he has corrupted human genetics to be capable of evil. It is hard-wired into our brains to have the capacity to do evil. I find this to be highly probable reading ancient pagan texts which claim that evil beings manipulated the DNA of people.
You are very wrong. Somehow I don't think you are at peace. I think you want evidence for the existence of the Holy Spirit but want quick proof. I don't think you are prepared to invest in a long term relationship with God that through times you will understand His nature and will have all the proof you need.
I see you made up your theory. It just makes sense to you so you adopt it without evidence. With all these good guys, bad guys and conspiracies in your head you can't be at peace.
I'm at peace (and it took my a while to get here) but know that there is no bogyman under my bed certainly helps. Recognizing the reality of life can be calming, although not a first. I have a little secret to tell you. When I ask for proof of the holy spirt or God or Satan or the tooth fairy for that matter I know you or anyone else has any, but just want to show you that you have nothing. But if by some chance you find something, I'm willing to look at it.
Whatever the case may be, Satan and God do exist and that is the truth. You will find that out one day. This is a bad world. So if someone wants to have a happy, lovely life they must shut their mind to evil and the suffering that goes on. Yes, serving Jesus makes one a serious target for Satan and that can be stressful. However, the deep seated peace Jesus gives compensates for that.
Recognizing the reality of life has the ability to make someone sink into the depths of despair. If one doesn't recognize this then they are completely impervious to reality. I have no strength of my own to cope with reality. Only God can help me. Then again, those who don't love Jesus don't have Satan trying to torment them with everything he has got.
I find it sad that you feel you must invest so much time in showing people they have no evidence. Day in and day out you say the same thing not achieving anything. There is no empirical proof of the existence of God and Satan. If there was, what are we arguing about? That evidence is revealed to those who ask for it and when I mean ask for it, I don't mean lazily asking for instant evidence. It's a life-time commitment to know the truth and people want to take short-cuts.
Tell me, you've been here a while...what do you believe you have achieved on these forums?
Nope that is not the truth. The truth is you live in a fantasy world that is back no zero evidence. The truth is YOU think there is a God. See how the language works?
Truth - you can only claim you think there is a God. You can't claim there is a God.
As for your other question.
I'm not at all wasting my time here. I am here for purely selfish reasons that has nothing to do with religion. You are here for purely selfish that has something to do with religion.
I'm here to exercise my dyslexic and artistic brain. Religion happen to interest me as do functions of the brain and the two happen to go hand in hand. I've been asking myself what in the brain causes one person to believe in God and one person to not. Is it a difference in the brain or a difference brought on by indoctrination? I am aware I will not change your or anyone else's mind, but in trying to do so I'm exercising mine.
I believe it takes a long time to see YOUR truth because it takes a long time to train your own brain to think you know there is a God.
That's not the truth. Sorry if you like it.
You can't claim that I live in a fantasy world. You can only claim you think I live in a fantasy world.
I am here to make people think. I am here to give an explanation to those who think Christianity is wrong. Many don't understand the context of the scriptures and I try to put that right. It isn't because of selfish reasons. I truly love Jesus.
Don't you claim that the religious are indoctrinated? Well, you needn't do anymore research then. You have your answer.
You will see the truth for yourself one day even if it is only in death. I have a question for you: Would you make God's will your will? Would you be prepared to allow Him to have the final say when you make decisions in life? Would you be prepared to try and turn away from the corruption of the world?
You are correct. I THINK you live in a fantasy world and you THINK there is a God. And you THINK you've got the right one.
I already try to turn away from the corruption of the world. As to you question about God's will. If there was a just God and he revealed himself to all, not just me because I could be deluded and he asked to help others I would. If he asked me to kill, I would not. Would you?
Nope, I don't think, I know.
As noble as it is to help others if God wanted you to but serving God means giving your entire existence to Him. Our desires aren't applicable any longer. That can only be done by trusting He will make the right decisions for us. That is faith that takes years to hone. Even then, we can never reach the level of faith that we ought to have.
Here's another question: If you chose to serve Christ, would you be prepared to take torment that goes with it? Anyone who loves Christ becomes a target for Satan. It can get so bad that I get tempted to withdraw from everything and not speak about evil to others or against it and to distance myself from God. That fortunately is temporary but when it happens it's bad.
Unfortunately many Christians do not understand what I'm talking about. They think serving Jesus is just a happy thing but it's not. Not enough attention is made about Satan trying to make one's life a living miserable.
God would never ask me to murder. God is not capable of evil.
But I know there is no God. Which one of us is wrong?
I see, you are incapable of making your own decisions. You have no free will.
I'll certainly discuss these questions with you when you supply evidence resulting in proof of the existence of God.
Radman: But I know there is no God. Which one of us is wrong?
Claire: As noble as it is to help others if God wanted you to but serving God means giving your entire existence to Him. Our desires aren't applicable any longer. That can only be done by trusting He will make the right decisions for us. That is faith that takes years to hone. Even then, we can never reach the level of faith that we ought to have.
Radman: I see, you are incapable of making your own decisions. You have no free will.
Claire: That's not how it works. We have to make our own decisions in life. We have to make plans for our lives. However, giving our will to God means allowing Him to make something happen or not happen based on what's best for us. In other words, He will other sanction or reject our plans. It is a form of guidance.
Here's another question: If you chose to serve Christ, would you be prepared to take torment that goes with it? Anyone who loves Christ becomes a target for Satan. It can get so bad that I get tempted to withdraw from everything and not speak about evil to others or against it and to distance myself from God. That fortunately is temporary but when it happens it's bad.
Unfortunately many Christians do not understand what I'm talking about. They think serving Jesus is just a happy thing but it's not. Not enough attention is made about Satan trying to make one's life a living miserable.
God would never ask me to murder. God is not capable of evil.
Rad Man: I'll certainly discuss these questions with you when you supply evidence resulting in proof of the existence of God.
Claire: I'm afraid that is up to you. You need to really want to find God and invest years in honing your faith and up to the day you die. Jesus had to work on His faith for years. Why can't you? You have to be prepared to take on torment before you even start looking for Christ.
That's not what you told me last time.
The first time you clearly said you no longer are allowed to have desires and you no longer make your own decisions. Claire those are the two things in life that makes us happy. Hope and control. When I point out that you no longer have the free will to make decisions you change your tune. Now you say you make your own decisions and plans, but God does what's best for you, he may reject your plans. Sorry Claire, same thing, God thinks you incapable of making decisions. It's like your still a child as an adult.
Perhaps you should get some counselling for that. Why as an adult you want to be treated as a child?
Of course we have to make plans in life. For example, in my life at the moment, I have put my house on the market for financial reasons. That is the decision my family has made. If God wants the house to be sold, it will happen. If He doesn't, it will not sell. In other words, He makes the final decision. I want to keep the house but maybe something happens in the future that would make me seriously disadvantaged if I give into my desires. When one doesn't know what direction to take, one needs to ask God for guidance. We are meant to work as a team. God doesn't dictate our every move. Many things go very wrong when they don't allow God to guide them. For example, a person may decide to have an affair with a married person possibly not realizing they would leave so much carnage in the family. Since God knows everything, if you put your life in His hands, he will not make it possible for one to commit adultery. God is omniscient. He knows what is best for me. I don't. So why not ask Him to take the lead? People are too proud to do this. They don't want to be guided by God. They want to do their own thing and then have a crai when things go horribly wrong.
I know people like being in control. That's human. It means we don't feel insecure but most of the time we are not in control. Things happen. When we come to the end of our own resources, God helps.
Why wouldn't I want to trust someone who has only my best interests at heart and who died for me? Looking in retrospect in my life, there are some things that would have turned disastrous for me if I had the final say in a situation. I cried and moaned at God because I didn't want His will to be done but mine not realizing that my will in a certain situation would have led to my destruction. God's desire should be our desire. The son of God chose to be "treated as a child". God sanctioned His every move.
I understand that you may not understand some things I say. It's hard for me to articulate properly to someone else who doesn't understand what I'm trying to say because they haven't experienced what I have. I'm doing my best.
So to recap: We have to make decisions in life. Manna doesn't fall from heaven. We don't have a booming voice in the cloud that says, "Do this! Do that! Don't do this!" The way we find out what God's will is for us is to make a decision and then let Him sanction or not. Therefore he makes the final decision. It takes humility to do this but it ensures our lives won't spiral out of control.
I have to say Claire that was a very human response and probably the first I've read from you. Keep that up. So what you are saying is that no real Christian has ever had an affair or dated a married person. They also never made a poor decision.
This comes back to something I've said before. Take the blame when you make a mistake and take credit when you do well. Christians tend to blame the devil or thank God. This is your life take control.
The thought of committing adultery sickens me so much I could never do it. My conscience would be so powerful I wouldn't even be attracted to a married man. That doesn't mean that the thought won't be put in your head for a moment. It is just that someone who loves Jesus would never entertain it. Entertaining the idea is committing adultery in the mind as Jesus said.
However I am not here to judge. The more one loves Jesus the less appealing sin is. I think that if we are in danger of committing serious sin, God will avoid us being in a position where we would really fall into that temptation.
How often and to what extent a Christian sins has a lot to do with the strength of one's faith. I think when we don't trust God enough, we are more susceptible to sin. In other words, we are susceptible because we want do do our will when our faith is not that strong. We think that our needs exceeds what God wants. The whole point of having a faith in God is so that we can be redeemed from sin.
I remember I used to get drunk when I was younger because I didn't know how to deal with pain in life. It was embarrassing to my family and dangerous. I took such risks that I almost paid for it dearly. How did God address this? He led my psychiatrist to put me on an anti-depressant that made me less tolerant of alcohol so I could not take much alcohol. That is how I got over my budding drinking problem. I was not in control of myself so God helped me. Who knows what would have happened to me if I didn't take those anti-depressants? God loves me so much He'd work through a psychiatrist to help me when my faith was not so strong then.
Nobody can blame the devil for evil they commit. We made the decision to do evil and thus need to take the responsibility. Doing good is commendable as well because we made the decision to choose good. However, all good comes from God and thus all good deeds are inspired by God even if we don't believe in God. So God needs to be credited, too.
There will never come a stage when someone doesn't sin no matter how close they are to God. However in my opinion, someone who loves God with a strong faith would never commit adultery. They would be aware of the pain it would cause all parties and could never reconcile with that. How could someone steal another person's spouse knowing that children suffer and they could do badly at school or join a gang because of the pain.
Once again, are you saying a Christian such as yourself has never had an affair knowingly or unknowingly with a married person? Or for that matter God prevents Christians such as yourself from knowingly or unknowingly doing anything wrong?
Instead of thanking God from saving you from alcohol perhaps you should thank your family and your psychiatrist? Take credit and blame for you actions. You'll start to fell better about yourself.
No, I've never had an affair. Didn't Jesus say, "And not lead us into temptation..."
We are never going to stop sinning but someone who loves Jesus would not be inclined to commit a sin over and over again knowing how much it hurts God. Would you continue to do wrong seeing how much it hurts your loved ones? If not, you are putting them first. In my case, I put God first because I cannot bear to hurt Him. That is what we are supposed to do: put Him first. This is the first commandment.
Sin comes from wanting to please our needs. Love is selfless.
Jesus gave all the credit to the Lord. All good things come from God. I will not water down the expertise of my psychiatrist but God can use anyone to serve His purpose if it is for the good for those who love Him.
I think you would like to have some sort of confirmation God exists but you aren't aware of the huge boulder standing between you and the truth. You will never find God the way you believe.
"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
You asked if I wanted to be treated as a child. You think you know best but I, like a child, think that my Father knows best. This is why you will not find the Kingdom of God.
Ego prevents us from having a relationship with God.
I didn't ask if you ever had an affair. I asked if a Christian such as yourself has ever had an affair with a married person wether they knew the person was married or not? You stated that Christians such as yourself receives help from God not to make these errors. So, in the last 2000 years no Christian has been duped by a married person into having an affair?
You have to remember, there are only 4 genuine Christians in the known Universe.
And 3 of them are dead.......
I stand corrected.
I know as truth in my life that God would take you a person from a situation which would lead someone who loves Jesus to have an affair or would be given the strength to resist it. If a Christian has an affair, they have put themselves first before God which means they love themselves more than God which is breaking the first commandment.
As for not knowing if someone is married or not, God will expose it. The very gift of the Holy Spirit is to redeem us from sin. Doesn't the Lord's prayer say, "And deliver us from evil..."?
All I know is that the biggest deterrent for me sinning is the fact that I'd destroy my relationship with God. Nothing can possibly be more important than that. What in the word could possibly be worth more than a love for Jesus?
Of course we are weak and do sin. We can do things on the spur of the moment. The point is that our love for God would make us willingly repent. Having an affair with a married person gives someone ample time to think about what they are doing.
It takes years to get to a stage where nothing matters more than God. Some have good intentions when it comes to being a Christian but often it is just too tempting to put oneself first and that is where the trouble starts.
Then I must have missed something, because it seems that the goal of this thread is to thwart the critical thinking process in people.
Yet I find that your explanations does nothing to assuage the cognitive dissonance that's indispensable with your beliefs.
God is a merciful God and never punishes ..... but yes you must know when Adam & Eve sinned then everything else in the world began to fall into pieces .. the correction was again done by our most merciful God who sent His only Son Jesus to Restore things back to us. check in Jeremiah 29:11 .. if one reads the Holy Bible one will be knowing The mind and heart of God .. and how Gracious is He to His creation and not what you think ..
Really? Did you even read that book? Just in case you got bored in Genesis with all of the "begatting" and decided to skip to the end, let me clue you in on a few things you missed:
Noah and the great flood: (the single largest act of genocide in the history of the planet)
The Plagues in Egypt: (where your "merciful God" murdered all of the first-born males in the country)
Sodom and Gomorrah: (He slaughtered every man, woman, and child in both of those cities)
Go back and read that book again sometime, you definitely missed a few things.
People wake up .. you know so much about the Holy Bible and yet you are not lead to think the goodness of His Grace and mercy.? The Prophets were screaming and shouting to repent and pleading with people .
Noah and the great flood: (the single largest act of genocide in the history of the planet) - Noah did plead as according to the Good Lord to the people .. but people were busy in horrible activities!
The Plagues in Egypt: (where your "merciful God" murdered all of the first-born males in the country) - God did try to tell them to return to the Lord and Let Mosses be the Leader in telling them so - did they change?
Sodom and Gomorrah: (He slaughtered every man, woman, and child in both of those cities) - These two cities of disgusting sins ..? were they not warned by the Lord's angels?
Would you not punish your child to be corrected in his/her ways? - THINK!
You've just contradicted yourself as the other individual just pointed out. You now concede God does punish yet you previously said He didn't.
Yesterday you said...
Today you say...
So the slaughter of millions of humans is God's way of punishing disobedience? And this is the "loving and merciful God" that you choose to worship?
Hitler was responsible for the deaths of around 6 Million Jews in WWII, at the time that was approx .3% of the worlds population. Hitler is widely considered the most evil human ever, so much so that he's generally the standard of evil against which all else are judged.
God destroyed EVERY LIVING CREATURE ON EARTH, with the exception of the inhabitants of Noah's Ark, and you worship Him.
I see and understand the point you're looking to make here, but I feel God is being misrepresented. For one thing, technically, the flood could not be punishment for disobedience as there were no laws or mandates by God (at least mentioned specifically) that specified what was acceptable and not acceptable behavior. It says God sent the flood because the hearts of humans had become 'wicked'.
Now I know that the general consensus is that the flood was global and killed every living thing that wasn't on the ark. Bible translators clearly believe this. But within the context of the bible itself it's clear this is not the case. Like the descendants of Cain who lived before the flood and yet introduced skills that existed long after, or the specific mention of the Nephilim who it says in Gen6 lived before the flood and in Num13 the Israelites encounter descendents of.
Disobedience and wickedness are two different things. Gen1 describes God creating humans who lived according to His will which is illustrated through explaining that they did exactly as God commanded over numerous generations (be fruitful/multiply, fill/subdue the earth, establish dominance in animal kingdom). This is exactly what homo sapiens did. And they lived harmoniously in nature for tens of thousands of years. There was virtually no violence between humans, no class stratification, no male-dominance, and no desire for individual ownership of possessions.
Adam was different. Unlike the humans in Gen1, Adam was only given one rule and he broke it. So did Eve. Then Cain, the 3rd human of this line killed Abel, the 4th. Immediately they all showed a tendency to follow their own will instead of God's. Then the beginning of Gen6 explains that these two blood lines mixed when Adam's descendents found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and took them for wives. It says this while explaining the reason for the flood. It even says that because of this God regretted putting humans on the earth.
It's that individual will apart from God's, or our human tendency to live outside of the whim of nature, or often in direct conflict with nature, that much more fits the 'wicked' description than being disobedient. Here, for the first time since the earth was created, there were beings in existence who could behave in a way that's contrary to God's will/natural law. Because the flood happened just 10 generations later, it obviously didn't have to be global. It was only meant for this 'wicked' element which would have existed in a small region.
To be clear, this wasn't a punishment. This was God taking action to offset a dangerous element introduced by the beings He created that had a will of their own. He put them here with naturally evolved humans and they of their own free will bred with them. This resulted in wickedness that had to be wiped out. Much like many other mass extinction events throughout the evolution of life, this can be seen as another 'edit' that shaped life as we know it today.
So let me see if I've got this straight: since God created humans whatever the "nature of humanity" at the time, it would've had to come from God. So God looked down and saw that humans were "wicked". Instead of correcting their behavior (which would most certainly have been with in the power of an all-might deity; the creator of humanity in the first place), God decides to simply slaughter them all and start over. And it's not just humanity that pays the price, it's the plants and animals in the area as well (be it localized to a specific region as you suggest, or planet wide). Then, religion has the audacity to claim that this is a "loving and merciful God".
If humanity was truly wicked, it's because He created them to be so.
All of this is beside the point however. I'm not arguing the malevolence or sadistic nature of God; my point is that there is no God. Religion is a concept of humanity, it always was; there is no difference between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Hellenism, or Roman Reconstructionism, they're all just advocating a different variety of superstition.
Would free will truly be free if God used His all-mightiness to correct behavior? That's kind of the whole point. If we're to truly have wills of our own then we have to learn how to wield it. All of the most amazing accomplishments of humans came about through our free will, but all of the most atrocious acts of humanity did as well. Human will is the single most constructive/destructive force in nature.
To say there is no God is to say that there is no deliberate reason for life. No purpose. Yet we assign purpose and meaning to our own lives. Born of what exactly? Nothing more than the interplay of unrelated evolutionary bi-products, like emotion? The whole reason any of this means anything to any of us is because we care. Because we're emotionally invested. Saying there is no God is also saying that everything that makes humans truly human is nothing more than a phenomenon that came about by accident. Willful human volition has only existed for a small percentage of time, yet all life is driven, since the very beginning, by a will to live and survive and multiply. Where did that momentum that propels life start? Who's will drives life since it cannot be the conscious choice of every living thing?
To say there is no God is simply illogical. What is life? What is death? There is still no concrete answer. And while it should be noted that religion and God are two different things, at least religion attempts to address those things that are undoubtedly a major component of existence that is simply beyond the jurisdiction of natural science. Considering all the still unanswered questions, your conclusion is premature at best.
Oh Headly, there you go again, claiming to have all the answers.
"Would free will truly be free if God used His all-mightiness to correct behavior? That's kind of the whole point."
So he doesn't want to correct behaviour he wants to kill everyone?
"To say there is no God is to say that there is no deliberate reason for life. No purpose.
Because you can't find a reason to live without the concept of God there must be a God? Strange, all the other animals don't have the concept of God but they keep on going and seem to have a purpose. I have a purpose and don't believe in God, how is that possible? There simply does not have to be a God. We simply are an accident of evolution, once you wrap your Noggin around that concept the world will be a better place for you.
"To say there is no God is simply illogical. What is life? What is death?
To say there has to be a God to give purpose is illogical. What is life? Life is when a man a women gets together and loves each other so much....... What is death? Death is the end of life, if you are lucky enough to have children your genetics lives through them.
Come back when you have evidence that God exists.
Don't be dense, Rad Man. I read your 'answers' coming up on the feeds all day long. You're no different.
If God equals nature, and free will is a will apart from natural determinism, then God/nature interfering would mean free will doesn't actually exist. If it didn't actually exist then behavior would be a moot point. It's really very simple.
You're clearly not giving what I say the common courtesy and attention required for an actual mutually respectful conversation by really comprehending what I say. I obviously never said anything about being unable to find a reason to live.
Life is proof of God. Explain life without Him. And I don't mean procreation. I mean the phenomenon of life itself. Not the biological processes that signify something is alive. Actual life. Or death, for that matter. To say there doesn't have to be a God means you can explain these things as having a cause that doesn't require anything more than naturally occurring processes. I know you can't because nobody can.
If there was no creator to deliberately create existence then existence does not have purpose. As in, there was no purposeful reason that set it in motion. It would be, as you say, another accident. And any purpose you assign to it would be nothing more than an illusion your under that's actually nothing more than other evolutionary accidents.
So, come back when you can actually explain everything in existence still happening without a creator. Life's kind of a big one. You might just start with that.
You've got it. There is no purpose for our existence collectively besides perhaps taking care of the earth for future generations. Individually we certainly do have a purpose. However finding that purpose can be challenging. My purpose right now is to get my kids through school successfully and safely and still have some money left over at the end of the day to travel.
http://www.astronomy.com/en/sitecore/co … 0life.aspx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/ … acesection
Better minds then mine are in search for how life started on this planet. Just because they haven't found it yet doesn't mean the won't. Should we not search because you think you have the answer? Saying God did it without the evidence pointing that is like saying Aliens did it, although I would entertain the alien idea if there were evidence to support it.
You're missing the point. Stating outright that God doesn't exist is the issue here and is at the very least premature, if not totally illogical, when we do not yet have that answer. In that way believing God exists is at least a more logical answer because that belief actually addresses life while at the same time giving existence a purpose. To state that God does not exist based on our current level of knowledge is illogical because it makes a claim that simply dismisses unanswered questions on the grounds that somebody somewhere someday will answer that question, and that all the purpose and meaning and emotion we feel that makes life important to us is nothing more than an accident.
No no no no. I've got a better idea, lets say we are but a speck in a child's glass box. Where she started life using a kit she got from the store. She watches from a magnifying glass. Now you can't prove me wrong, do we keep that believe and not search for the truth? Do we follow the evidence? There simply is no evidence for God. If you have some please supply it.
What you are suggesting is illogical because you have no evidence as support.
I never even suggested not looking. You keep trying to inject ridiculousness as if I said it and then argue against it. Have you and I not yet reached a level of mutual respect so we can not waste time with this sort of thing?
Existence is the proof, not to mention the first 11 chapters of Genesis that cooborate history we've only recently learned, but I won't retread that here. The fact is science is limited to materialism. If anything exists that we know for certain exists, yet is undetectable scientifically, then the logical conclusion is that it's highly unlikely to be the only thing in existence that's undetectable.
Okay, I'll play nice. Your right and I'm sorry.
I does suggest to stop looking when you say you have the answer. We know 2+2=4, we don't keep trying to find a different answer. Genesis is certainly not proof that a God exists. I've read about Santa is that proof he exists? And yes if something is undetectable and has no evidence that it exists, then most likely it does not exist. Look at he higgs boson particle, people much much smarter than I think it exists, but as of yet (maybe) have not found it, but there is evidence that it exists so they try to find it. In the case for God, no evidence exists beside an old flawed book. Logic dictates. Just because you want to have a purpose in life (to be with God) does not make it so.
I offer an answer that explains existence (the evidence) without contradicting anything known. And if I'm right where Genesis is concerned then at least some of it is potentially testable. It's a likely hypothesis, one consistent answer, that simultaneously answers currently unanswered questions while staying true to what's already known. Nothing about that says to stop looking. If anything it offers potential direction to steer investigation. If the goal is the truth, then it's illogical to rule this out.
All you have as evidence is the bible. The writer of the bible had no inside knowledge that the rest of the world had at that time. The bible talks of God telling and commanding people to do and behave a certain way, but I have yet to see such God. I see a world that nature has managed and one that humans are not exempt from anything other animals are exempt from. Jesus made many claims that the power of prayer will come to those that use it, but no such power exists. Cancer still know no boundaries. The bible asks for blind faith, that is something only a lier would ask.
I ask this again. Which person is telling the truth?
1. I did go to school today, just call the school and talk to my teacher.
2. I did go to school today, just trust me. Don't call the school they will lie to you.
Actually, the bible is the only evidence that you will agree counts as evidence. There's plenty more that supports my view that you simply don't see as evidence. That doesn't mean it's not there. However, using just the bible, even though they couldn't have 'inside knowledge' as you put it, I can illustrate how they correctly describe things they couldn't have possibly known.
Kind of like not having an answer for invisible purple dragons, too. It is premature and almost totally illogical to emphatically state they don't exist.
In essence, you're saying it's illogical to not chase down hard evidence for every invisible super being ever concocted from the imagination.
Yes, it invokes our stature as evil, sinful meat bags, programmed only to choose between an eternity of hellfire and to worship and praise an invisible maniacal super being. Yeah, that's more logical.
There are no unanswered questions. We have all the answers in the Bible, which is the word of God. What more do you need?
Did I say anything about hell, or did you inject that yourself? Again with this. Please address what I'm saying and refrain from projecting your own stuff on me if you could. As for your purple dragon, if half the world's population believed in it and it was grounded by ancient texts that consistently describe the purple dragon even though they were written by numerous authors over the course of many centuries, then yes, from this standpoint the purple dragon should maybe be considered as well.
The main point is, whether you accept it or not, the existence of God as described has not yet been ruled out and serves as an all inclusive answer to everything if true without conflicting with current knowledge.
To dismiss that possibility without proof is no different than if I were to say we might as well stop looking. As far as we've come, as much as we've learned, He's still a distinct possibility. To ignore that based on personal bias is illogical.
So a lie is okay as long as enough people believe it?
That was a description of the purpose in life God gave us. You said that was logical. Obviously, it wasn't.
So, we commit several logical fallacies in order to support the existence of invisible purple dragons.
It has been ruled out because there is no evidence to support any god. Simple, really.
Personal bias? LOL!
It is YOUR personal bias and nothing else that is supporting God's existence.
We've learned nothing in regards to gods, nada, ziltch, zip.
Again I never said anything about an eternity in hell. You did. Personally, I see that as a man-made view used to control behavior through fear.
You're right, because we don't actually have viable reason to consider the purple dragon thing, then it would be illogical to spend time on it.
Please explain to me what exactly you would expect proof to look like? Life itself is proof, but of course you don't and won't see it that way.
Life is only proof that we are here. I'm not sure how you think life is proof of the existence of God? By using your logic life could be proof that aliens put us here. Life is only proof that there is life here.
The same reason we don't consider your god. See how that works?
It's not possible to view life as any proof or evidence of your god considering the they are not associated in any way. One is real, tangible and came about entirely on it's own while the other is a myth, just like the invisible purple dragon.
I know. I get how you don't see it that way, but that doesn't make it any less true. The God of Genesis simply spoke what He willed to be and it became. So what else would it look like? The evidence of Genesis being accurate where the formation of the earth is concerned would be an earth that appeared to form itself. If Genesis describes God standing on the surface commanding life to come forth from the sea and to become different things, then the evidence would be organisms that came from the sea and evolved into various species, again seemingly on their own.
From creation, to humans who were commanded to do exactly what homo sapiens actually did, to Adam and Cain's families existing and building a city for the same length of time that the Ubaid culture inhabited southern Mesopotamia before coming to an abrupt end that involved flooding, to an actual mass migration that mirrors Babel, to the city of Uruk, the dawning of civilization, and on and on, Genesis gets it right.
What if the proof has been right under your nose the whole time? Genesis says God created beings that lived for centuries and built cities and behaved differently than the 'mortal' humans who came before. The Sumerians, the Egyptians,the Akkadians/Babylonians, the Greeks, and the Romans all spoke of beings in their ancient past, gods, human in form, male and female, who were immortal and who bred with humans making demi-gods. All of them told very similar stories.
This is exactly what the beginning of Genesis describes. So, if that were true, you would expect to see exactly what we see. What else would you expect evidence of the existence of the God of the bible to look like?
Something totally different from the reality we observe today, of course
In other words, you have no idea. Understand that it's only your preconceived notions of God and what Genesis says that makes it seem to conflict with the evidence. The very same evidence you see as proof that the God of Genesis does not exist is actually right on point. Everything from the geological formation of the earth to the evolution of life to the archaeological and climatological evidence in that time frame and region all lines up exactly, down to the number of centuries in between where it's specified.
And when recognized as such, it goes a long way towards answering questions we've yet to figure out, especially where the human transition from hunt-gather/horticulture lifestyles to the first civilizations are concerned, the origin of the various languages in that region, and the emergence of the highly self-aware human ego.
As well as this hypothesis lines up with known facts, it would be illogical to ignore or dismiss it. It would be no different than a believer dismissing confirmed scientific evidence. If finding the truth is really the goal, then this should be given its due consideration.
The world as it is today is explained based on science, those explanations came from nature and don't agree at all with the Bible's version.
Yes, I understand you are dishonestly attempting to form fit the Bible into science and the world around us.
The Bible says nothing about that.
Finding the truth is the goal, hence we discard the Bible.
I have no reason to lie, ATM. I can back up everything I've said here. Whether or not you accept it or dismiss it doesn't matter.
Accepting it would require it to make at least some sort of sense. Having read your arguments in detail, I find them to be - at best - desperate. Still - like all good Christians - you change what the bible actually says to suit yourself. At least you are not going to war with the other sects that do not agree with your heresies.
Ive changed nothing, Mark. I have simply used our modern understanding to find the proper context and it all lines up from there. Doing so has cleared up a few key misconceptions about what Genesis is describing. Once those are corrected it's no longer a disjointed and ambiguous mythological tale, but reveals itself to be a very clear detailng of how the stage was initially set.
I have read your stuff. It makes zero sense. You have changed the meaning of the words to suit - and even then - it still makes no sense because you have misunderstood the science behind it.
If you've read everything I've published so far, which I'm pretty sure you haven't, then you still have only heard a small portion of it. The majority of it where it corresponds to human history in that time frame and region hasn't been written yet. I'm finding so much to support it I can't keep up.
But feel free to actually prove what you're saying. I can provide evidence than can actually be checked out rather than just some metaphysical concepts. I can give you time lines and tons of evidence that supports my claim. Just find a place to start and we can go from there.
No - as we have already discussed - you proposing nonsense and then demanding it be disproved is not how it works. Sorry - I have seen your time lines - and I have watched the discussions that prove you wrong many times. I myself have done so and will not do so again.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
Nobody has proven anything wrong and I challenge you to show me where they, or you, have done so. The majority of what you and I have discussed has been related to creation, and your comment about me just not understanding the science is laughable, by the way. But the majority of the most interesting stuff comes after that and the evidence is much more detailed. Bring your friends if you like. If there's no truth to this then this should be no problem at all to pick apart.
I told you several times - this is not how it works nowadays. You postulate nonsense - it is up to you to prove it, not demand proof that it is wrong. I know that is how your religion used to work in the past - no longer. Go! Prove it!
Fine. Start here ....
Genesis says Adam was created 1656 years before the flood. Cain killed Abel and was banished before Adam was 130. So Adam, Eve, Cain, and all their descendents existed for roughly 1500 years in southern mesopotamia before the flood.
The Ubaid culture spans before the city of Eridu was built (5300 BC) through to when it came to an abrupt (and still as yet unexplained) end around 4000 BC. Genesis says Cain built a city. The Sumerians say a god named Enki established their first pre-flood city, Eridu.
"Ubaid 1 sometimes called Eridu (5300–4700 BC), a phase limited to the extreme south of Iraq, on what was then the shores of the Persian Gulf. This phase, showing clear connection to the Samarra culture to the north, saw the establishment of the first permanent settlement south of the 5 inch rainfall isohyet. These people pioneered the growing of grains in the extreme conditions of aridity"
"Archaeologists have discovered evidence of an early occupation at Ur during the Ubaid period. These early levels were sealed off with a sterile deposit that was interpreted by excavators of the 1920s as evidence for the Great Flood of the book of Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh "
Then Genesis says the Babel story happened about a century after the flood....
"The 5.9 kiloyear event was one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene Epoch. It occurred around 3900 BCE (5,900 years BP), ending the Neolithic Subpluvial and probably initiated the most recent desiccation of the Sahara desert. Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BCE. It is associated with the last round of the Sahara pump theory."
Both Genesis (10:10) and the Sumerian King's List state that the Sumerian city of Uruk was built not long after the flood. Genesis says it was Nimrod, the King's List says it was Enmerkar. Both are described as mighty hunters. Archaeological evidence supports this timeline ...
"Uruk gave its name to the Uruk period, the protohistoric Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age period in the history of Mesopotamia spanning c. 4000 to 3100 BC, succeeded by the Jemdet Nasr period of Sumer proper. Uruk played a leading role in the early urbanization of Sumer in the mid 4th millennium BC."
And just as you can read all about in 'The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era' by Steve Taylor, the archaeological record also supports the idea that the civilizations that spawned in Sumer, in Egypt, then in the Indus Valley and elsewhere came, not as a natural progression of the already settled people of those regions, but on the heels of the arrival of Semetic/Indo-European speaking nomads flushed out by a growing Sahara desert.
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Insanity-Hum … eve+taylor
Sorry - I said proof, not religious myths and personal opinions.
What flood is this exactly? So - completely disproved on the basis that you have offered nothing but conjecture and religious myths. Show me some actual proof please, otherwise I must reject it all.
Proof that Adam was a real person.
Proof that any of these people existed.
Proof of this flood.
Proof of a Tower of Babel.
Sadly, combining actual happenings and majikally ascribing them to majikal happenings does not work. Sorry.
Completely disproved? Hahaha
I'm sorry Mark, but this isn't going to be that easy to dismiss. If we're looking for proof that the events of Genesis actually happened as described, then we're looking not just for individual events, but a series of events that correspond to the specific timeline given. It's all there.
The tower is in Eridu ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu#Poss … r_of_Babel
Flood evidence in that region is limited considering it's modern day Iraq, but in the case of the site of the Sumerian city-state Ur, there is a distinct line that indicates a flood that ended the Ubaid culture there. There's also 11 feet of flood deposit noted in the soil below Eridu. Besides, most acknowledge the likelihood of an actual flood being the inspiration behind the numerous flood stories that originate in that region, most notably that Genesis story and the very similar Sumerian version.
Here we have actually documented history that lines up with Genesis down to the number of centuries. You've got the Ubaid culture lining up with the length of time that Cain and his family existed, which includes the building of a city just as Genesis says. You've got the same skills noted as being introduced by his descendants all originating in that region and timeframe. You've got an abrupt end to one culture, including a corresponding flood, followed by the establishment of another. You've got an actual tower in one of the 4 city-states noted as being part of Nimrod's kingdom (Eridu), as well as the establishment of another city-state also attributed to Nimrod (Uruk) happening at the right time and place. And you've got an actual mass migration out of that region spurred by a dramatic change in climate.
As for Adam and the gang actually existing, we've got numerous stories from that region all claiming the existence of several immortal beings, human in form, male and female, interacting with, and in some cases actually procreating with, humans. The Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans all considered these stories as their actual history.
All of it falls right in line. And that's only the beginning. I could literally go on all day. But just as I said before, we can start with this.
No - I am going to require some actual proof. Sorry.
Actual proof beyond the creation account correctly listing 13 specific creations and 6 major eras of earth's history in the correct order? Actual proof beyond Genesis 2-11 actually lining up with 2000 years of history in that region down to the number of centuries that passed in between? Actual proof beyond the countless texts written by the actual people who inhabited that region that claims there actually were immortal beings who existed and even interacted with them?
Okay, how about the fact that the exact impact you'd expect to see if Adam were actually the introduction of the human ego/free will/individual selfishness can be seen as well? Because it's all there. The tell-tale signs that distinguish those of us from 'civilized' bloodlines from the primal/tribal cultures that continue to behave much like the hunter/gatherer homo sapiens for tens of thousands of years are the difference. Adam was described as having a heightened self-awareness (realizing he was naked) and fully capable of behaving outside of the will of God (self will versus will of nature/instinct) by disobeying, unlike the humans of Genesis 1 who did exactly as they were told... populate/subdue earth, establish dominance in animal kingdom.
Genesis describes there first being Adam and his family and Cain and his family before the flood, which as I noted lines up with the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia. In fact, Eridu, the first Sumerian city-state built during the Ubaid, also has the distinction of being the first human settlement to have social stratification. They had a government, a monarchy. They had a ruling class and a working class. All of their cities actually had a temple at the center where they claim the patron god of the city actually lived. The Sumerians believed they were created by these gods to serve them.
Then, after the flood, Genesis describes the descendents of Noah being dispersed at Babel. So, where before we would only see the traits of those 'of Eve' in that one region, now we should see it spread from Mesopotamia out, which of course is exactly what we see. If Babel actually happened around 3900 BC (5.9 kiloyear event), then we should begin to see a repeat of Eridu/Ubaid elsewhere. We see it first in Uruk (3800 BC), which led to full-blown civilization in Sumer (3500 BC), then Egyptian civilization to the west (3400 BC), then in the Indus Valley culture to the east(3300 BC), then in Akkad to the north (sometime before 3000 BC), Syria, Greece, Rome, etc. This is when humans changed on a fundamental level. This is when war started. This is when social stratification first started. Male dominated societies. Possessiveness. General human selfishness that didn't exist before. This is also when humans became very inventive. This is exactly the impact you'd expect to see if Adam were created as described in Genesis.
I know you'll continue to reject this, but you can't say nobody ever showed you. It's all there.
Yes - sorry - actual proof - not your re-writings to suit. Something concrete.
Okay, what would you suggest beyond showing how the entirety of civilized human history lines up exactly with what's described in Genesis? Pictures? Birth certificates? What exactly would proof beyond this look like? A giant fingerprint on the moon? You tell me. What proof beyond existence itself do you require? If existence is God's creation, and God did as Genesis describes, then what we see now is exactly what we'd expect to see. All of it. I've re-written nothing. Our modern knowledge base simply allows us to now really understand what it's describing. Your evidence and my evidence is the same evidence. So I'm not sure you're sure what you're even asking for. Can you tell me?
Please stop lying at me. The Entirety of civilized human history does not line up at all with what is described in Genesis.
Some physical evidence please.
Existence itself? LAWL - That is proof of existence - nothing more.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
Show me some proof - anything testable. Anything.
The major piece of evidence is Creation itself, but if you dont believe in a Creator, you have placed your faith in something else.
Good luck with that.
That is why your ignorance has caused so much inner conflict.
No wonder your children moved so far away from you.
Good luck with that.
Children become adults ,well thats the theory besides , how do you know where my children are lol lol
Oh dear ,ignorance
I rest my case
Maybe you are living proof Mark ,that you have been made in Gods image OR God simply is using people like you to challenge and make his people stronger.
Because Christians do rise up and conflicting debate should cause people to THINK......not lie,kill and slaughter
So thanks for being you ,you have been instrumental in increasing my faith ..hehe
Please stop accusing me of lying. I take it from your statement that 'civilized human history does not line up at all with what is described in Genesis' you have something in particular you're talking about? Something you know for certain doesn't line up? Maybe something you know for certain doesn't mean what I'm saying it means in Genesis? You wouldn't just say that, would you? In the very same paragraph where you accused me of lying?
Existence is the physical evidence. You're right, existence alone is proof of just existence. But existence with Genesis is proof of knowledge beyond the comprehension of its Iron Age authors. And existence supports the claim in Genesis that God spoke and existence came into being. Existence appearing to have formed itself is exactly what you should expect to see. Life 'coming forth from the sea' and becoming this and that is exactly what you should expect to see. Humans populating the earth and establishing themselves as the dominant species is what you should expect to see.
Maybe you can tell me more specifically what you require because the same evidence supports both your view and mine. I have as much 'proof' as evolution, or any other theory that corresponds to known evidence, has 'proof'. Beyond an ancient text that correctly describes the formation of the earth and the beginnings of human history, most of which we've only recently figured out ourselves, I'm not sure what I could give you.
If the penalty for not "wielding" our free will according to God's wishes is annihilation, how can you call it "free will"? At the very least it's coercion, if not flat out enslavement; either way, there's nothing "free" about it.
Everything that makes humans truly human is nothing more than a " phenomenon that came about by accident". What exactly is it that you think makes you so special? Where is the "life element", or "divine gene" in human being? Humans are nothing more than a complex collection of chemicals. You romanticize emotion like it's some ethereal state of being; it's just another biochemical reaction.
Life is a chemical and biological process; death is the end of that process. It can be a scary prospect, I'll admit, to think that there may be nothing more after this life- that we are, and then we simply cease to be; but clinging to an outdated fairy tale doesn't change that fact. I find it interesting that you feel than an unfounded belief in an invisible, supernatural being is a more logical explanation for things, rather than scientific exploration of the world around us.
Religion doesn't attempt to address things that are a major component of existence, religion claims to have all the answers already; "there is no God but Allah", "I am the way, the truth, and the life", "I am the Lord, thy God". Religion doesn't explore the meanings of life and existence, it claims to have solved all that thousands of years ago.
No, it's really not. You don't need proof of where something came from to know where it didn't come from; this is another attempt of a logical diversion that believers use.
If you were to walk into your kitchen tomorrow morning, and there's a glass of milk sitting on the counter, what proof would you have that that glass of milk didn't come from a stone? You have no idea where the glass of milk came from, there would be no evidence that it didn't come from a stone, yet you wouldn't feel foolish for dismissing the "stone theory", why? Because even though you don't know where the milk came from, you can rule out sources that you know it couldn't have come from.
God will punish evil I guarantee you that. How would you feel if someone said they planned disease? Would you think it's acceptable if they manufactured a pandemic that would kill millions? Would you think it's acceptable if someone sprayed chemicals on crops to plan hunger?
God did not plan sin and rebellion. Satan did. The Adam and Eve story is not literal by the way.
Satan is in control of world affairs but God controls those who love Him and give their will to Him.
LOL! I think Mark, amongst a host of others here, have serious problems with bended knees.
@claire mark is correct...if jesus is lord , he doesnot need support of mortals to defend him...but i think u r hothead not in defending jesus but defending ur belief....if jesus is lord he is capable of sustaining criticism coming from one of many species in the world ...
She will ignore me. She hates anyone who speaks Truth.
So if people thought Jesus was wicked wouldn't a Christian naturally want to set the record straight? Was Jesus not defending God when He came with a whip into the temple? Was He not defending God against the Pharisees? Or ought He just have let them think what they liked and blasphemed God?
I bet you would defend the one you love if they got hurt by another.
When you love someone the first thing you want to do is defend them. Any Christian who has Jesus in their heart ought to know this. Jesus gets hurt from people who slander Him often because of the wrong perception. Why can't I explain things the way I see them?
So let me do things my way.
"Why can't I explain things the way I see them? "
Because your perception and cognitive functions are badly impaired by religion. Just listen to yourself.
"Jesus gets hurt"?
Hence the constant conflict you find yourself in.
@claire jesus wasnt defending god...no god needs to be defended...god is capable of defending oneself as per all scriptures ever written...remember as per your scriptures god made everything including earth and humans?...
Jesus like you was defending his own believes not GOD....If GOD needs people to defend himself , it would be anti god trait...going by definition of god ...
Hi Every one.
This is a false concept about the messenger to say them wrong. The Almighty God has saved these souls from each and every bad thing. I condemn the usage of bad words against Jesus and Muhammad (PBUH).
@khmohsin u have right to condemn those who criticize muhammad and jesus...in same way people have right to criticize muhammad and jesus...both r historical figures with human impact (positive and negative) on human beings world over...there are not above criticisms
If annihilation were truly a 'penalty' for behavior then we'd all be dead. Don't confuse matters. The flood was a result only necessary because of the choices made by beings with free will. It's clearly not the norm. People go on living everyday behaving outside of God's will.
Right, so in your view any meaning we assign to life is nothing more than an illusion we're under. I get what you're saying.
Life, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:
"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
Life is clearly more than just chemical/biological processes. When life is present then yes, there are biological processes; homeostasis, growth, adaptation, organization, etc. But we have no idea what the phenomenon of life itself actually is.
Also, I didn't say belief in God is more logical than scientific exploration. I'm not pitting God and science against one another. I said stating that there is no God is illogical. You, nor anyone else still to this day, can't simply define what life is. So how can anybody make that statement logically?
Religion is a man-made thing that I won't often defend. My point here, however, is that religion at least takes all of existence into account. There are some very significant components to existence that science is simply unable to address. To base your whole view of existence on strictly what can be detected/observed scientifically is to dismiss a lot of really relevant stuff. Like life, or the human mind, which are both still to this day completely undetectable scientifically.
Okay, so you're saying you can rule God out? That sure would end a lot of these debates if you could.
What exactly, do you think: "metabolism, growth, reproduction, response to stimuli, and adaptation to the environment" are if not chemical/biochemical processes?
Religion doesn't take all of existence into account, it only concerns itself with those aspects of existence that it feels conforms to its own values and beliefs.
You want to know what the biggest difference is between science and religion? It's that science it still looking for answers; religion is content to just simply believe. Science is pushing forward: exploring the nature of the world around us, studying human biology, investigating the origins of life on Earth, looking for signs of life elsewhere in the Universe; meanwhile, religion is still worried about who can marry who.
No science doesn't have all the answers, but at least it's still asking the questions.
Oh if only, yet... here we are.
That's exactly what I said, that those are biological processes that signify life is present, but they're not life itself. An organism exhibiting those functions is defined as biologically alive, but those functions are the manifestation of the phenomenon of life itself.
I completely agree with you about religion. That's probably my single biggest issue with it. Religion places itself in a place of authority of knowledge where it clearly doesn't belong. They're just humans too and have no privileged knowledge of anything above anyone else.
You keep saying things like "life itself" or "the phenomenon of life" like you think that there's some hidden element or chemical that makes us alive.
The act of something "being alive" is no different than the act of a computer being on and running; as long as the right conditions exist (power, operating system, etc) then the computer will continue to function, when those conditions cease to exist (i.e. when you turn it off, it crashes, etc), your computer ceases to function.
Right. And in your example life would be the electricity. Without it those same components would be life-less. There is no molecular difference between living and dead orgasmic matter. Even the dictionary makes the distinction. Wikipedia makes the distinction. I'm not just making this up.
You meant "organic", trust me, that's not one you want to get confused. lol
@xenonlit and it is ur belief or do u have any tangible proof to back your statement?
Do you have tangible proof that the Higgs Boson exists or that we spontaneously erupted from the primordial soup?
Of course we spontaneously emerged from the primordial soup. Why make things more complicated by invoking Majik instead?
It is accepted scientific theory aka. Given that Majikal Invisible Super Beings cannot exist - the most simple explanation is this. But - if you have a better one - please go ahead and show your proof and evidence.
Sorry - was that the proof?
I mean - you do have some proof that life did not spontaneously arise - right? It needed a Majikal Super Being that did not need to be created itself.. You must have some proof - I mean - no one would think this without some evidence.
Seeing as I know you are big on proof.
Where's your proof?
Both "theories" are equal, and faith based.
Watch > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIm85YuplJ8
No - they are not aka. One theory is a simple explanation, the other nonsense (not a theory at all) adds impossible Majick into the equation. Equal forsooth. The Majikal Being Exists or no Majick is needed - 50/50 huh? Equal I sez!
No - I will not waste any more time on YouTube nonsense from religionists. Sorry - You have cried Wolf! too many times.
Show me the proof!
I showed you a logical, reasonable argument, but, as usual, because it disproves your pet theories, you dismiss it out of hand.
You have NO PROOF of primordial soup abiogenesis, so stop pretending it's all settled. There is NONE.
It's not even accepted by experts who know more than one scientific reason WHY it was IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh, but you don't want to hear that.
It messes with atheist dogma too much.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
BTW, no, Jesus is not (ever) guilty of evil! (The real thread topic).
No - you did not such thing aka. You told me that Jesus told you into your head that he dunnit.
This does not count as a logical, reasonable argument - sorry. The most simple explanation is that life arose spontaneously. You are the one claiming that this is impossible and it needed to be majik.
Please show me some proof that this is the case.
Jesus? You guys are still trying to force Jesus on us 2,000 years later - I call that pretty evil. How did that work out for the Aborigines? Especially as he knew it would be thousands of years of hatred and conflict.
Now you are lying about me. Look up abiogenesis for yourself. Every proposed theory is filled with insurmountable problems for which they have NO solution. No "Jesus" mentioned. It was your ancestors who dispossessed both the Aborigines and American Indians. You tell me! I recon it was for economic gain, not religion, that they invaded and dispossessed the natives. Hatred and conflict is in the nature of man. We evolved that way, remember??
Dear me aka. I thought you had a personal relationship with Jesus and he told you things into your head. My mistake. I guess I assumed this is how you know that spontaneous abiogenesis is impossible and evolution never happened.
In that case - how do you know that spontaneous abiogenesis is impossible and evolution never happened?
Great get out on the Christian treatment of the Aborigines. Hard to see it as for economic gain. Maybe you could explain?
Hatred and conflict is from evolution now? Not from Jesus? Confused me again aka. It seems you only invoke Jesus when it suits you.
Yes, your mistake! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis. You exported convicts to eliminate an economic "problem". No. Just playing to your tune. IF we evolved, as you keep asserting, then evolution explains EVERY behavioural trait we humans have. Hence, we evolved that way. (Mind you, that's not what I hold to, but, you, most certainly do). I think it's commonly referred to as "playing the devil's advocate"!
How many behavioral traits do humans possess or are capable of putting to action? It's not really a long list considering the 65 million years of social and environmental adaptations primates have endured. Surely, even if a very tiny change in a single behavioral trait occurred every decade, that would still amount to over 6 million evolved developments in our behavioral traits.
Considering our comparatively short lifespans of around 40 years conservatively over those millions of years, we would have some 1.5 million generations of primates, each generation evolving some small portion of those traits.
So, my point stands.
Whatever traits we still have, ALL are as a result of evolving this way.
It should, therefore be accepted as "normal".
Meaning that anything anyone does, is OK.
No-one has the right to force their "morals" on another, including punishment for crimes, as laid out by laws, that don't take evolution into account.
Not ONCE, have I heard a court rule in favour of a criminal as being "evolved" the way he/she was, and therefore be let "off the hook".
Please cite any that you may know of, that I don't.
It appears your point has been lost.
No, that's not what it means at all. That completely ignores any negative influences or affects our behavioral traits can exhibit without self control.
Of course not, that makes no sense at all. We have laws now as a result of religions having forced their morals on everyone, including punishment for whatever ridiculous crimes were committed towards their gods.
You have not created any conclusions based on anything I said, but were derived instead from your own false premises.
Ok, we have laws based on religion.
Get rid of laws, and see where lovely humans will go.
I'm sure their "evolved" perfection of character will make this planet a real utopic paradise.
That's the aim of atheism, isn't it, make the world near perfect without any religion/
Your point has been made. Thanks.
Few, if any. Laws are based on human rights, not some gods commands.
Why not get rid of religions instead? Humans would prosper greatly as a result.
Evidently, your religion failed miserably in that regard.
Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.
I can jump in a hot shower on a cold day and say it feels perfect, even though the temperature of the water may not be the same as another time I thought it was perfect. That then contradicts the perfection I felt when I jumped into a cold shower on a really hot day.
Perfection is relative, hence mostly irrelevant, dude.
Emerging from a primordial soup is definitely not a fact.
Coming from you - that is hilarious. Facts seem something of a foreign concept to you.
When is the Atomic bomb going off at the Olympics.
Oh wait........ It already didn't.
That's what I'm trying to tell "them", but they still hold on to science fiction with all the faith they can muster!
Labeling it science fiction might be the problem. It is no more fiction, and no less fiction, then is religion. Both far ends are attempting to insist their conclusions, based on all the data available, are fact. I don't see where there are enough facts to support either conclusion; if argued as indisputable fact.
If only "they" would agree that both "theories" fall into one and the same category, I would settle for that as common ground.
However, the die-hards refuse to acknowledge that, so, I don't give an inch, in return.
PS, re "fiction", I disagree, because, all known scientific/physical/biological law has ZERO precedent for life from non life, and every possibility proposed has insurmountable blockages that prevent the event from ever occurring. Do the research. It's not hidden information, neither is it from "religionists".
Yes - this is a fact. Sorry. There is no question that this happened. It is just a question of how.
If you have no answer to the HOW, then you have no answer, period.
Until then, you have no claim that it did. Especially coming from one who believes that the universe is eternal. Then so is life on earth, without beginning. No need for abiogenesis. It just always was.
No aka. Sorry. Life was not possible on earth at a certain point in time. We had to wait for conditions to become favorable. I can see why you would not get that - you think the earth is how old again? The fact that the Universe has always existed does not mean it has always been the same. Things change all the time.
Show me your proof aka.
How do you know that?
Favourable? What's that? There never was a favourable. If there ever COULD be a favourable environment, it would be today. Science with all it's technology still can't replicate any such "favourable" environment.
Oh, but nature did, we just don't know WHEN, HOW, WHY or by WHAT means. Sure, I get it now!
Clear as mud. Thanks for showing me.
Dear me aka - no need to get angry at me. The conditions that favored life were very different to conditions today. We know WHEN approximately, We do not know HOW exactly, and the WHY is a meaningless religious question. And the life that arose would not survive in today's environment. Sorry you don't understand.
Scientists are attempting to replicate conditions that existed when life emerged, and claim that we are close to replicating them. At which time, we should be able to start experimenting.
Not sure I understand your argument though. Because we have not been able to replicate it - it is IMPOSSIBLE? Is that what you are saying?
Is that how you know it is impossible? Not that Jesus told you into your head?
How come this does not apply to the Invisible Super Being? As we have not been able to see it - it must be IMPOSSIBLE - right?
Is that how you know evolution is impossible as well? Because I can fix that one for you.
If the "WHY" is a meaningless question, then so are the arguments about conflict, relationships, purpose, meaning, reason, love, knowledge, or any other (worthwhile) human pursuit.
WHY are you?
By all means, keep arguing irrelevant topics with unnecessary zeal, with meaningless people who disagree with you about, well, nothing important, really. It's all without purpose, or an end result.
I think I will go off and kill myself now!
That is laughable and typical. Believers must resort to fallacious tactics of placing limitations on what science can and can't do based on technology, so they fall back on their religious beliefs when answers aren't readily available.
Funny how in this day and age of technologies, we found out the world actually isn't the center of the universe and the sun doesn't revolve around a flat earth.
But hey, removing foot from mouth has always been a fun scenario to observe.
You do realize it's believers who made those discoveries, don't you?
You do realize that most of the entire known world in those times were forced to be believers in public, don't you?
"Privately I believe in none of them. Neither do you. Publicly I believe in them all."
~~Senator Sempronius Gracchus to Julius Caesar.
Well that's a broad assumption you're making there that we know doesn't apply to Galileo, for instance, who is the one that proved the heliocentric planetary system. In fact, it was his attempts to reinterpret the bible based on his findings that got him in trouble with the church. Not something you'd expect a closet atheist to do. And we know it doesn't apply to Sir Francis Bacon who pioneered the scientific method... "Let no man think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word or in the book of God's works, but rather let man endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both."
Science finds its roots among believers looking to better understand God though studying his creation.
This is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever read. Science isn't about "looking to better understand God, that's a matter for faith. Science is about the search for knowledge (the word "science" coming from the Latin word for "knowledge"); trying to hijack science to fit your particular religious perspective is just ridiculous.
There have been hundreds of "one true religions" over the years, and thousands of deities, what makes you think yours is special? What's the difference between your God and Mithra, or Chronos; what makes Him any more valid than Thor, or Shiva? There is just as much evidence for their existence as there is for your God, so why are they "myth" and yours "real"?
Religious discussions aside, I really wish that, when you guys (and by that I mean believers) start trying to use science to "prove your point", you would at least do some independent research on the topic, and not just recite the same dogmatic nonsense that seems to permeate these discussions; it's like you guys are all working from the same misguided pamphlet or something.
Your argument about Galileo displays a strong "religious-bias" on the subject. Galileo didn't set out to "better understand God", he was setting out (like a good scientist) to clear up the discrepancies between Aristotle and Copernicus's competing views of the Universe; for which, he was persecuted and threatened with torture and death by the church.
Your comment about Francis Bacon, again, shows either a profound lack of understanding on the subject, or an intentional attempt to deceive (both of which are not only consistent with religious practice, but frankly all too common). The quote that you cite would appear, at least at face value, to support your claim, however, someone decided to do a little editing. Whether you got the quote from a misguided source, or you intentionally edited the quote, I won't presume to guess, but when you look at what Bacon actually said, the meaning changes:
"To conclude, therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or the book of God's works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together."
The quote, which came from his book "Of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, (Divine and Human)", talks about the need to search for knowledge from all sources (meaning science and the physical world), not just the established teachings of the time (meaning religion). In this quote (the unedited version at least) he even warns that science and religion have nothing to do with each other, and should be kept separate.
I'm not hijacking science. I'm pointing out that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. It is not the sole domain of the non-believer. A majority of the forefathers of modern science were themselves Christians, and not just on the outside as ATM suggested, but actual men of faith.
That quote from Bacon is from the forward in Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species', though my quote was inaccurate. Thank you for the correction. However, if you read the rest of the text in context my original point is very clear. Bacon was a believer as well. And his warning had to do with the general mindset that learning was seen by many in his time as the evil temptation taken by Eve and could therefore be a bad thing that could lead to Atheism. His separation of the two had more to do with understanding the difference between learning God's works/nature and it being totally separate from the "proud knowledge of good and evil, with an intent in man to give law unto himself, and to depend no more on God's commandments, which was the form of the temptation."
http://books.google.com/books?id=HW2xi0 … mp;f=false
As for your wish that we believers do our own independent research, I've done that. I continually do that. From what I've found there aren't many who are saying what I'm saying. This is my own reconciliation of faith and science. I didn't get this from anyone else, though I've found others since on a similar path. I simply see cohesion between the two where most others only seem to see polar opposites.
And I wasn't claiming that Galileo set out to better understand God in his study of the planetary system. ATM claimed that the forefathers of science were probably just doing what everyone did back then and acted like believers when they weren't actually believers themselves. So I brought up that example as someone, who proved the discovery ATM mentioned specifically, and who after proving the theory clearly demonstrated the actions, not of a closet atheist, but of a believer in God.
They are mutually exclusive however, since one of them (religion) claims to be absolute truth.
Again, that's a religiously biased view of the argument, not an objective one. When compared to the entire body of Bacon's works, his views on the separation of science and religion are fairly obvious.
I don't believe science and faith are "polar opposites", there is a place in the world for both, as I've stated before (numerous times) my problem with religion is that it claims to be "truth" and tries to force itself on others.
Did you not say:
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting your information about Galileo from, but if you are as concerned with accuracy as you genuinely seem to be, then I would suggest that you find a new source. Galileo was put on trial, found guilty of heresy, forced to retract and denounce his work, threatened with torture and execution, sentenced to imprisonment, confined to house arrest, and had all of his works banned. He died, still under the condemnation of the church, and while some may like to believe that he was a believer in God, all evidence points to the contrary.
I would love to believe that the legend of "Eppur si muove" is true, there's no proof of it.
I completely agree with you where religion is concerned. Religion is a man-made thing which is fundamentally flawed by the notion that they, as you pointed out, are an authority on 'truth'. Every religious idea or belief was formed by people centuries ago who had a much more limited worldview than we do now. The problem is, being that they're supposed to be an authority on 'truth', getting them to admit when they're wrong can be a long and painful process.
My comments about Bacon and Galileo had everything to do with showing ATM two examples of scientific forefathers who were obviously not closet atheists, as he was suggesting. I'm not knowledgeable in the complete works of Bacon, but what I have read makes it abundantly clear that he was a man of faith. I will, however, no longer refer to that quote until I've read more of Bacon's work to decide whether or not it's conveying the right message.
Galileo was clearly a man of faith as well. He did what I would do if I had proven a Heliocentric planetary system, he went to re-read the bits of the bible that involved the sun and found that the accepted interpretation of the time was based on an inaccurate view. Much like I'm doing now. We now have a much more accurate worldview, so I'm re-reading in that context and finding it makes way more sense.
I know Galileo's story, and none of his dealings with the church had anything to do with his faith. Again, the church in his day made themselves the authority of 'truth', and Galileo had the gall to draw a different interpretation than them from the bible based on what he knew to be true. I am a Christian, but you won't often catch me defending religion.
Although he very well may have been (even though I highly doubt it), there is simply no evidence that Galileo was a "believer"; all evidence suggests the opposite.
So you don't consider Galileo taking interest in the interpretation of the bible being based on the correct information proof enough that he was a man of faith? He clearly wasn't disputing the bible. He was disputing the church's interpretation of it. That's what got him crossed with the church in the first place.
He wasn't "taking interest in the interpretation of the bible", he was trying to figure out how his two great idols Aristotle and Copernicus could come to two such vastly different conclusions.
You're drawing pretty broad conclusions from what is, at best, in conclusive evidence. Too many times believers try to view history as a rorschach test; the facts and evidence are what they are, for better or worse.
Oh, I think I now see the disconnect. It wasn't Galileo's claim that the sun was at the center of the universe that the church had an issue with. They, intact, were in support of it. It wasn't until he began to reinterpret passages of scripture outside of the church's consent based on his confirmation of a heliocentric system that the trouble began.
Which is what lead to his persecution, yep.
See, atheists and believers can have rational discussions
"Welcome to Science: You'll Like It Here"
http://livebyquotes.com/2012/welcome-to … hil-plait/
I didn't know he was (trying to be a) Christian.
How come he didn't get thrown to the lions, as were so many Christians in Rome, IF he was truly a "public" Christian?
I'd venture to say, he was speaking about believing in the Roman gods, which were NO gods at all, anyway.
And what exactly makes your God more valid than their Gods?
That's something you will have to figure out for yourself.
My explanations may not be as convincing as your own discoveries.
Wish you well, (should you accept the challenge).
I've figured it out: they're all fairy tales, I was simply wondering: with the hundreds of religions there have been, and the thousands of deities, from where do you draw the irrational arrogance to claim that yours is the "one true God"?
It's especially interesting when you consider the fact that Christianity is just a collection of pre-existing mythologies; nothing about it is a new or original concept. I was curious why you're so quick to dismiss the Roman Gods, especially when Bacchus (or Dionysus as the Greeks called Him) was one of the sources that the myth of Jesus was based on.
Born of a virgin
The son of the a God
Persecuted for claiming to be divine
Killed and the resurrected
... are ya starting to see a pattern here?
There's also Mithras and Osiris (and about two dozen more), but since you mentioned the Romans, I figured I'd stick with Bacchus.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I think I will convert to atheism now, become a mass murderer, and be done with it.
That way I will live on for eternity in infamy after I die and not just rot in the dirt like every other worthless piece of flesh that walks the planet today.
If it's all meaningless, who cares if I'm arrogant to believe in God.
It's equally arrogant to tell me you have it all figured out to be just myths.
Why would you want to become a mass murderer? Is that how you actually see yourself behaving without guidance from your religion?
Essentially, what you're admitting is that you haven't the least bit of logic and reason developed or you would completely reject any logic and reason if you actually had to think about what's right and what's wrong entirely on your own.
Sorry, but losing a belief in a god is not the same thing as losing ones sanity and becoming a psychopathic killer.
In another thread, you claimed the Roman gods were not really gods at all, so it would appear you claim to have it all figured out.
That's about the level of intellect I would expect.
So the only thing that gives your life meaning is the belief in a fictional character?
If you believers were content to simply practice your beliefs on your own, that would be one thing, but you people insist on forcing your nonsense on the rest of us.
Common sense isn't arrogance, observation isn't arrogance, logic and reason aren't arrogance; arrogance is claiming one baseless, superstitious, delusional, fictitious collection of myths is more valid than another.
Especially when your nonsense is a blatant ripoff of theirs. Christianity is like the Carlos Mencia of religion.
No, come on. That has been debunked a long time ago. Here's an example.
Zeus slept with Dionysus mother, Semele, thus he was not born of a virgin:
Thyone was born Semele, a Theban princess loved by the god Zeus. When his wife Hera learned of their illicit affair, she tricked the girl into having Zeus swear to appear before her in his full glory. Bound by an oath he did so, and Semele was consumed by the fire of his lightning bolts. Her son Dionysos was recovered from her womb, and upon reaching adulthood he descended to the underworld to fetch her to join the company of the gods of Olympos.
Dionysus was the son of Zeus and thus not the son of God. He traveled around teaching people how to make wine. No miracles, however.
He was also killed as an infant but resurrected. That part is true. However, he resurrected into another form because he was eaten.
It's a myth, it was "debunked" when it was created because it was never true to begin with. It's no more accurate than the myth of Jesus.
While we're on the subject of the "virgin birth", let me ask you a question, which makes more sense to you?
A: The Universe and everything in it was created by an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful "God", and this all-powerful God impregnated a virgin in the desert 2,000 years ago so that she could give birth to Him in human form, so that He could redeem mankind.
B: Mary was just a regular girl who liked to fool around, and then lied to her husband about getting knocked up so that she wouldn't get stoned to death!
At the very least, Jesus was the product of an adulterous relationship
I'm not going to show you all of the parallels between that an Christian mythology, it would take too much time; if you're happy with your delusion, that's fine, if you want to learn the truth about the subject, go audit a Comparative Religion class at your local college.
Ahh, more of the unqualified Christian arrogance; what gives you the right to say which Gods are valid and which aren't.
Since when does God abide by logic? What makes sense to you does not reconcile with what God does. How could Mary lie to Joseph about her pregnancy? She would start showing, trust me.
LMAO! In other words, you don't want to be shown you are wrong again. Don't come make claims and then say you don't have the time to back it up.
Me arrogant? Have a look at yourself. My argument is to prove your claim of parallels with pagan gods to Christianity is false and not to prove which one is valid.
In all fairness we need to step back and have a look at the virgin birth story.
Joseph is married to Marry who is a virgin that gives birth. I was told the same story as a child over and over and over. I bought into it completely. But when you question the story just a bit it falls apart. The first thing you need to understand is that's it's just a story in a book. That being said why wouldn't God just create an adult Jesus? He's God he doesn't need to know what it's like to be human. Joseph is married to a virgin? I don't think so, most guys put a very fast end to that! If your neighbour came up with that story what would you say to her? Imagine your 16 year old neighbour telling you she's married and a virgin and pregnant, but don't worry the holy spirit told me it's God's baby. Trust me.
To bad they didn't have DNA test's back then.
Create an adult Jesus? One of the purposes of Jesus was to experience the life of a person from beginning to end. He had to fulfill the prophecies of a virgin birth. It's not enough for God to know what it is like to be human; He has to experience it for Himself. He showed us as a human how we ought to have a relationship with God. Faith is honed over many years and so Jesus couldn't just come as an adult. Joseph was not married to Mary when she was impregnated. They were engaged. Joseph was visited by an angel, too, telling her Mary was to be the mother of Jesus. He most certainly wouldn't have believed it had He not been visited by an angel.
That would be rather difficult considering no one had ever heard of Christ.
Which of course, is one of most blatant hypocrisies of religions, when their followers decide which myth is more valid than another.
Shame, if it makes him feel better then let him. I suppose we all believe in some form of "majik". LMAO!
Wow, the dishonesty of that statement only serves to show just how desperate believers are and how low they'll stoop to defend their faith. So many accepted theories brought those very same believers out of their caves so they might be able to freely discredit them on their computers, internet connections and these forums. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so detrimental.
Talk about desperate!!!!!!!
Just because we have an accepted (??) theory by (narrow minded, biased individuals) that is actually refuted and shown to be impossible by known science, does NOT make it so (fact) except in the minds of those who choose to put their faith in fiction.
Just go for it guys, I'm sure the feeble minded, indoctrinated and deluded ones will swallow this "hook, line, and sinker"! (that's the coveted, tripple laughy, BTW)
No. He is the son of God. He was completely sinless. Have faith.
I love how people attempt to discredit the spiritual with the physical. I don't understand how they can't see how incredibly pointless it is to claim scientific theory as indisputable proof of the foolishness of all beliefs, but I suppose there is enough foolishness to go around. Even for wannabe, but not presently educated to be, scientists.
I love how people attempt to discredit the physical with the spiritual. I don't understand how they can't see how incredibly pointless it is to claim religious mythology as indisputable proof of the foolishness of scientific theory, but I suppose there is enough foolishness to go around. Even for wannabe, but not presently educated to be, theologists.
I don't claim to be a theologist. However, I don't insist that theological theories are universal fact either.
Science doesn't claim to be "Universal fact" either, that's why we still call them things like: "The Big Bang Theory", and "The Theory Of Evolution".
Science is all best-guess based on what we know from observing the world around us, not what we're told to believe because of a 2,000 year old collection of mythology.
Very nice. It appears I know this and you know this. You might try convincing the fanatics who think science is a religion.
I'll tell you what, I'll make you a deal: I'll talk to "my guys" when you talk to yours...
To be certain, a large segment of the atheist community is comprised of (pardon my indelicate language here) misguided @ssholes; however, they're not in the habit of flying planes into buildings or declaring a "Geo-had" on people of opposing viewpoints.
What Atheists think science is a religion? Atheists and science do not go hand in hand. All people of science are not Atheists and all Atheists are not interested in science. That being said if you ask an Atheist how we got here most will side with science. They don't think science is a religion they think science trumps religion. Rather a big difference.
Save your time and read through the Bible yourself - Just the New Testament (to make it easy)
Pearls before swine:)
I just want you to know there are a few who actually know that you know what the hell you are talking about.
It's a lonely road, yes. But it's the right road.
If one part of it is LIE then I WHOLE thing is a lie! I believe in bible it a %100 but that's just me
I've spent a lot of time studiously avoiding this thread. Checking in occasionally to see what folks have to say, but not offering my own opinion. And - it is indeed only an opinion that I offer. I've studied the life of Christ in great detail over the course of my adult life - through Scripture of course, but also through other sources. I'm not going to go into any detail about what He did or did not do while He walked the earth, but I certainly do not believe He ever committed an act of evil.
HOWEVER, I'd like to propose this question: If Jesus ever committed even a single act of evil, does that take away the good that was done throughout HIS lifetime? And, if it does, then does a single act of good take away the evil done by someone like - oh, say Hitler? Stalin? Whomever you feel to be the most evil person who ever lived.
In the end, we are all so quick to jump on one thing to throw out an entire life (or for some an entire concept). There's really SO MUCH MORE to consider overall.
You cannot compare Jesus to the rest of mankind. Jesus could not save the world from sin and be guilty of it Himself. It means He would have lost to the devil. It means we would have chosen Satan over the Father.
It's different for us. If we commit a sin it doesn't mean we disregard all the good we have done in our lives.
I beg to differ. You can indeed compare Jesus to the rest of mankind. He was as human as the rest of us. I think you missed the point of my post, though. I do not believe that Jesus ever committed a single evil act. For those who do not believe that Christ is the Son of God, who simply see him as human, and may believe that He did wrong in His lifetime - it's important to recognize that the good FAR outweighs everything else.
That's all I meant. I had no intention of arguing with you, Claire, or of being contentious.
Now I remember why I avoided this thread as long as I did.
I meant one cannot compare Jesus with mankind when it comes to this issue.
I know you were theoretically speaking. I didn't believe it was your view. My answer was for those who may think along the lines of your theoretical question.
The point of this forum topic was to pose the question if He ever did any evil not whether doing anything wrong made Him a bad person.
What good would Jesus have achieved if pointing out the evil in everybody else but did not address His own evil, hypothetically? How can a non believer respect Jesus if they can read He claimed to be the redeemer of the world yet sinned? How can non believers respect Jesus when they know He claimed to be the son of God and they believe that is a lie?
When one claims, like Jesus, to be the complete antithesis to evil, one cannot respect Jesus just because He "mostly did good works". Any good Jesus would have committed in this hypothesis would make it hypocritical.
Motown, I didn't jump down your throat. You are being too defensive here.
Thanks. I just read your dreaded Christian hub. Sounds a little like my own story.
There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus, if he actually exsisted, is the most wicked man in the Bible.
Thanks for the joke, a very enjoyable one. I will recommend this joke to all and sundry
What's your obsession with Jesus? How can you say Jesus is worse than Moses ordering rape of virgins?
I didn't see you on my 9-11 forum thread. It was started for you.
I don't have an obsession. I just adore Him.
A non believer shouldn't have this level of obsession with Jesus and just repeat the same thing over and over again despite the fact he has been proven wrong.
If Jesus was in fact evil according to man's standards how then is his crime of subverting the people by not supporting paying taxes?
New International Version
Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.
"My kingdom is not of this world." - John 18:36
Is this justification for crucifixion?
No, but some parts of the middle east iare still stoning to death adulterers?
Ignorance runs rampant in the world. People do things believing they are doing the right thing but God is not going to hold us blameless especially if we don't change our ways. The believer as well as the non-believer will be judged when the time comes.
The reason much of the ignorance and bad things that happen (like stoning an adulterer) happens is because of what was written in the holy books. The bible often describes when and how to kill people and even commit genocide. Will he judge himself? Will he judge us by following his actions and words?
By it showing up in the Bible it might appear that God is at the forefront of these actions. It is my understanding however that God is simply going along with mankind's chosen way of life. It is how man conducted his life and so in order to communicate with someone you both have to speak the same language. I am quite certain that talking to mankind at that point in time suggesting that they love their enemies those people would've probably thought God was crazy.
Please forgive me but that is possible the biggest copout I've ever heard. The creator of the universe, the omni everything God can't figure out how to tell people to love each other without sounding crazy so he tells them when and how to commit genocide?
This is the last I'll say on the subject to you because I believe you have your own ideas and I can't affect that.
If getting through to people was is easy as you make it out to be why haven't we stop the killing among each other?
God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge one would think that was enough but it wasn't was it?
This planet should be a world of peace but we haven't stop murdering since Cain and Abel. Apparently it is not only God who has a problem with getting people to do the right thing.
God telling people to commit genocide is the right thing? Sounds more like a story told to give people a sense of entitlement.
I suggest that, in reality, we humans are simply a species of animal, subject to all the material happenings around us. These happenings can support our existence or threaten it. We learn by various means the skills and habits that tend to protect and defend us from everything that might bring about our demise. This is the general principle which allows any living thing to survive and flourish.
However, when the human mind (very clever and innovative) builds up belief systems it is part of the survival instinct. Religion and all its trappings is nothing more nor less than attempting to acquire power and mastery over inferior members of the tribe, thus ensuring a better chance of survival for the believer.
This is how I regard your references to "god." Real for you, in your imagination, but not automatically real for anyone else.
I can agree with this statement when referring to organized religion. However, there are some that view their religion as a personal life philosophy that is only applicable to the individual.
Ah, Deepes, you're a gem. Someone who gets it and makes sense, too?! Yes, they are out there! Awesome
The unfortunate thing is that the most vocal representatives of Christianity are those who who have that superiority complex over others and seek to try to rub it in the face of others. The issue with that is that this group of people are presenting themselves as representatives of the whole group and as such those who have a differing opinion are ostracized by that vocal majority, but also painted with the same brush by non believers
Indeed, typically yes. But I will say, Christians like you and Mo are such a breath of fresh air. You guys do not rub your Christianity in anyone's face and/or come across as superior or 'holier than thou'. I, for one, truly appreciate it because it is such a change of pace, you guys do not preach fear, intolerance, and judgment which are the very key components for the typical reasons why some reject the beauty of what Christianity is supposed to be.
I try not to do it because my beliefs is mine alone. Others cannot believe how I believe because they do not think how I think (no knock on anyone). I look at things in terms of what works best for my life alone. I cannot apply what works for me to someone who has lived a different life and has a different perspective If someone thought how I think, then they would no longer be themselves. They would be me. I like being unique.
Fear is a tool of control. I do not seek control over anyone but myself. Intolerance is for the egotistical to give themselves a false sense of superiority. Judgment is reserved for God alone (if God exists out of respect for those who do not believe). We cannot know his mind and as such cannot know who will be accepted and who won't be as according to what's in their heart. Well, I take that back. Those who have evil in their hearts (by God's standards, not mine) will not make it in, even if they are believers.
And that I fully respect. But don't you think that any belief, even the personal one, is a factor in the inherent desire for survival? It does not need to be rejected; simply recognised and allowed, but not denied. IMHO
Would you mind pushing this thought further and elaborate on this question and why you would see it as a need for survival
I don't think that your argument makes sense. For one thing, god had NO problem telling people what to do or what not to do that were contrary to lifestyles and cultures of the time - specifically, not worshiping other gods, not stealing, not murdering, not bearing false witness, etc.
What I don't understand is that god commanded the Israelites not to murder - and then instructed them to massacre men, women children, infants - rip babies from the womb of pregnant women and then to kill everyone but the virgins - the virgins can be kept as sex slaves. Does the fact that behavior may have been typical in the time make it acceptable? If so, why did god command the Jews to undergo circumcision. Why did he instruct them on idols? Wouldn't he have just fit into the surrounding cultural norms, if that's what you're claiming?
If He's supposed to be a standard of the highest morality, why should He care what they'd think? I've heard that excuse used for people. But isn't God supposed to be "above" man. Why should he then go along with their atrocious ways of life unless he condoned/ordered it and/or did not see it as wicked?
I'm not sure if your question is directed towards me but if it is my explanation is this.
People want to put God in the same frame of mind as humans and God is far beyond that.
When God finished his work of creating man he gave man freedom and dominion over the world. Mankind is thinking if they were in charge might say the same thing but constantly checking you out and seeing what you're doing wrong so they can correct you. God on the other hand gives you absolute freedom it would make no sense to give you freedom and constantly be telling you what to do.
The kind of world that man creates is entirely left up to them and if they create a world where lawlessness is tolerated then so be it. If they create a world where trust and honesty is valued so be it. Now God might offer suggestions as to what might make a good life in our free will gives us the option whether or not to choose that advice.
He doesn't 'go along with it' so much as allow people to actually be human beings. Unfortunately that does mean that people will do bad things (by almost anyone's standard) and suffer the consequences, of which they have been warned.
Still threatening in God's name I see. No wonder you guys are despised by so many. Feel free to email me and apologize .
As soon as I'm no longer misrepresented, I will apologize for it.
So you didn't actually either: a) Point out how you were not misrepresenting me or b) correct the misrepresentation.
I can certainly see how your belief system causes so much conflict...
just for the sake of argument Chris - if one of your children disobeys you after you've warned them of the consequences, do you see fit to torture them for even an hour? How about an eternity?
Okay, for the sake of argument -
I wouldn't and God doesn't. There are two parts to that argument, both of which I've pointed out before but I will do so again.
1) The assumption is that God created a place specifically to torture people who don't tow the line. I don't say for certain that He did NOT do that, but neither really does Scripture make clear that He specifically DID that. Although Jesus certainly gave some colorful descriptions of the afterlife without God, we don't know what it's really like. What we DO know for certain is that we will be eternally reminded that we are not with God. Now of course to a lot of people this seems like no big deal, and many may think that the worst that could happen would be something like out of the The Great Divorce (which was never my favorite C.S. Lewis book) where people just wander around acting out their insecurities from physical life in the next one. BUT...
2) The second part, which fits pretty heavily into the first, is that the opposite of turning away from God is NOT just living life. There is a real relationship with God that can be experienced in this world, and it would only be intensified to an unbelievable degree in the next one. I know all the arguments about "I can duplicate that feeling" to which I can only reply, how would I know? I've experienced certain things that I can duplicate but one thing I cannot duplicate is the two times I was actually in the Spirit. And I understand why some people spend a lifetime chasing that sort of ecstatic experience. No piece of music (and I've known some that moved me very, very deeply) has ever truly replicated that for me. So without knowing whether you were truly in the Spirit or not, I can't tell if you are 'duplicating' the real thing.
Not the best possible explanation, so let me try to sum up here. Many people seem to think of God as some great Brute who threatens people with torture and forces them to live joyless lives in order to please Him simply to avoid hell. Like a bad, abusive parent. But truly, He is not an abusive parent. A good parent is one who loves their child and gives them latitude (as God most certainly does) but also reminds them of what will make for a happier all around life (or at least less unhappy, because some people truly are in a place where there is no physical comfort for many reasons) and that if they do the right thing (which is believe in Jesus) then they can spend eternity in a really, really great place. And He also lets us see how doing 'the right thing' here DOES make us more complete. And we can truly have a wonderful, fulfilling relationship with Him here (and I do not believe in nor preach a prosperity gospel. I'm not talking money.) And if you experience that here, and know how much better it could be, then why would you want to spend eternity apart from that?
Quoted it for you. Even bolded it and made it italics.
Explained or expounded, no.
So my statement stands.
No. Not at all. I thought you guys got burned for lying? Guess not huh? How brave of you. Very impressed. Are you this brave in the real world?
Believe me Mark, no one is as impressive as you.
So, I'm an even bigger cunt than you thought, eh?
Yes....he was evil....that damn bearded made up bed time story man!
He got pissed at a fig tree when it didn't magically sprout figs on-command and cursed it. That sounds pretty shady.
I didn't think that was right. So I looked it up. And I was right.
12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
(Fun Fact: Matthew says the fig tree withered right away, while Mark 11:20-25 says the fig tree didn't wither until the next day. THE BIBLE HAS NO CONTRADICTIONS!!)
You've got to know the context about this. So here I shall explain it:
Luke 13:6-9 (NIV)
"6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”
Are human "souls" as disposable as a barren tree?
With every action Jesus did there was always a meaning behind it.
Here's an excellent analysis:
"We plant apple trees because we want apples, peach trees because we want peaches, orange trees because we want oranges, and fig trees because we want figs. We might as well ask what good is an apple tree that doesn't produce apples? You might as well cut it down. Or curse it, as Jesus did the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-19).
How did Jesus know the fig tree was barren? Because the leaves and the fruit typically appear at about the same time. To see a fig tree covered with leaves but with no fruit meant that it was barren.
Three insights will help us understand this story. First, in the Old Testament the fig tree often stood as a symbol for the nation of Israel (Jeremiah 8:13; Hosea 9:10). Second, we also need to observe that the cursing of the fig tree occurs on Monday of Jesus's Passion Week, four days before his crucifixion. Third, this story is placed next to the story of Jesus cleansing the temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 21:12-17). The money lenders had turned the Lord's house into a den of thieves. They were profiteers who exchanged foreign currency and also sold the animals that worshipers from distant towns would buy to sacrifice before the Lord. By shrewd marketing they could charge exorbitant rates and make a killing off the pilgrims who came to worship. The whole scene angered our Lord because he knew that the temple should be a house of prayer for all nations.
Cursing the fig tree was Jesus's way of saying that the whole nation had become spiritually barren before the Lord. They had the form of religion but not the reality. They knew the right words to say, but their hearts were far from God."
Jesus was completely grounded in His love for God. He was tempted by the devil and chose God/Reality instead of whatever the devil/delusion offered. How could someone committed to God one hundred percent be evil or do anything evil?
When you have a fantasy story as the one you've offered, anything could be possible. Yes, there could be a God that never does evil in a fantasy story.
The very essence of God/Pure Spirit is 100% Goodness. And that is not a fantasy story. Jesus said don't call me Good, Call my Father, (the essence of His being and of all of Our beings,) Good.
The Pure Spirit of all of Us is Goodness.
The source of wisdom, logic and love is Pure Spirit.
No room for outside goodness, it always urkks me when Christian say.
"That is a good person because he is Christian"
Mean wail as a group, they have the worst behavior overall, wars, prisons, natural environment, nukes and ect...
by Truly Different 7 years ago
"Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?"Every time I come from Israel to visit my friend here in USA, I am asked this question by certain people. I always answer that Jews do not deny existence of Jesus, they just don't give him an honor of being a Messiah. I explain WHY. Nevertheless,...
by Julie Grimes 2 years ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual faith based, religious, belief system. As it is, how can any of us Christians...
by FitnezzJim 3 years ago
Do you believe there are Descendents of Jesus Christ that are alive today?News articles have been talking about lab results regarding testing of a historical text that mentions Mary wife of Jesus. The test results indicate the text is not a modern forgery, and that the text was created in...
by Captain Redbeard 3 years ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book would never have been written because no Christian would have existed before...
by Elisah1957 8 years ago
The Gentiles are no longer enemies of G-d. Under the New Covenant they are Messianists (being one in the Messiah Yeshua). G-d word says from:(Galatians 3:8-9) Whats more, the scriptures looked forward to this time when G-d would save the Gentiles also, through their faith. G-d told Abraham...
by Irfan 7 years ago
I'm interested to know more about the Holy Ghost ... I have nothing against the Holy Ghost but once i know more i may have extra questions... please try to reply with quality not quantity.thanks.
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|