With all the conversation about the bible as God's word; I am really baffled. Please help me to understand how one may possibly come to the conclusion that the bible threatens when they do not believe in God; or have no "evidence" of his existence?
I am not afraid that I should lock my door because Freddy's coming for me (anymore ); and I am not mad at Wes for "telling" me I should be.
So, if God is not real in your mind/heart/brain/book-knowledge, how may the bible be viewed as threatening? And why spend ANY time in discussion about God?
(I will start a Fear of Freddy forum soon to see what kind of responses emerge.)
Although it is a bit of sloppy thinking, it is easy to see that the followers and believers in the bible are indeed a threat to any lifestyle not their own. Far too many absolutely insist that their holy book must apply to everyone, that everyone MUST follow the personal interpretations of the believer.
If the bible wasn't attempted at being used to direct a "non-believers" life, then of course it wouldn't be a threat...However...that is not the case so much...
I believe you're going to have to give some of those 0's back mister... you've abused your daily allowance.
LOL...I don't use them often so I have a back stash of them for just this type of occasion
Hoarder. Now there's none left for the rest of us... from now on we'll all be making +p's and no one will know why.
Yes, he is, and I've got the rest of them locked away in the basement.
You don't need any anyway as you would just put them on the wrong post - one that needs minus signs or something.
hahaha. I don't like the +1 anyway... I need a 'thumbs up' or something... Ive done that in real life so it rings true. Never has anyone said something I fully agreed with to which I responded, "Plus ONE, my friend! PLUS ONE!" lol... It just feels weird. Let's ask Matt to give us a "like" button like on FB. Maybe epsonok0 will start us off.
I will fill in the blank with the vowel of my own choosing, thank you very much.
I share...One must only fill out the proper request form and route it through the proper channels for them to be release for use by the requester.
Im shaking things up around here... no more +1's! From now on Im just going to clap... no one else will know, but my positive energy will be floating all around this forum like fairy dust in Neverland!
All that positive energy will attract more meteors (they are negatively charged from the solar wind and the Saturnians), inevitably resulting in another dinosaur killer sized one.
Beth37, responsible for genocide of the human race. And all other life on earth to boot. Will that be your legacy?
That's true, an absence of ppl does usually equal and absence of memory.
Bacteria, living 10 miles down in solid rock, will know and will retain the knowledge in their DNA. As the bacteria mutates and evolves into another intelligent creature, that knowledge will remain in it's DNA and Beth37 will forever be known and remembered as a genocidal maniac.
Because she used her positive energy.
Had Beth37 not done what she did the bacterial mutations would not have taken over the world, so to them she may be a Goddess.
Except that all goddesses are blonde and wear white. Could she be going incognito?
Yes, and she is blond, wearing white. Everyone knows only blondes can be a goddess.
The Egyptians painted her differently, to indicate a kinship that wasn't there. This is very similar to European depictions of Christ as a caucasian, which he certainly was not - people generally want their gods to resemble them and are not shy about lying about their appearance.
So we actually know that Isis is blond, and always wears white. Marble, maybe, but never sandstone or obsidian.
Thank you. Teachers always appreciate when their students find the lecture interesting.
Now, have you sprinkled your fairy dust on yourself in order to change the color of your hair and dress? So as not to be recognized? Inquiring minds want to know.
She is. And you know something sorta sad? My male cat (who's quite advanced in age) is named Isis. I inherited him, but that was his given name from his first mom.
Fairy dust is extremely potent magic. Have you not watched "once upon a time"? It caught the evil witch! And the giant!
Ok, using this line of reason (or was that thought?) Wes could come up with a Freddy Facts Manual to ensure that Freddy does NOT come for you, and we would get tons of feedback??? Could THAT be used to direct one's life?
If one was to use the "Freddy" movies to attempt to create laws that ruled mankind....well...you could figure it out I am sure...Right??
Why do I feel I need to say, "right"? Imaginary characters don't get "law" books... get it?
Do you believe in Allah? He has a law book that millions of people follow. It would seem your point is invalid.
From what I understand, Allah is the same God understood a different way. The people of Ishmael, the son of Abraham. My good took care of Ishmael and made his people a great nation as promised.
Then you understood Muslim (and Biblical) theology incorrectly. The god of the Bible and the god of the Koran are NOT the same god, and since your claim was that imaginary figures do not get law books, you don't believe that Allah is real (and therefore imaginary) your claim is unfounded and incorrect.
If the Bible is to be believed, god did promise Hagar's son that he would make a great nation. Not that he would eventually propagate another religion with contradicting claims and beliefs and an entirely different deity altogether. While Muslims respect Jesus as a prophet, they believe that he was not the son of god, that he did not actually die on the cross, and that the message was lost in translation.
Please explain how my God and Allah differ. I need clarification.
The bible specifically states that a great nation would come from Ishmael. The bible said that he Ishmael would be as a wild donkey.
I found a Christian site to answer your question, because it's been demonstrated that you don't accept secular ones.
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules … p;sid=1139
There are some very important differences between the God of the Bible and Allah:
God's only begotten Son is Jesus. Allah has no begotten son.
God made salvation available by sacrificing His Son and promises salvation by grace to those who believe. Allah sacrificed nothing, and only saves if sufficient works are done.
God has a payment for sins—Jesus Christ. Allah has no payment for sins.
God's Christ paid for the sins of mankind. Allah paid for nothing, and all men pay for their own sins.
God's salvation is through Christ's work. Allah's salvation is through people's works.
God's saving work is, "Come to Christ." The major part of Moslem salvation is to believe Mohammed was the sum and seal of the prophets.
God's book is very different from Allah's book. They contradict each other, so they cannot both be true. For example, the Bible says Christ was resurrected from the dead. The Moslems reject that as a lie.
God says his Son is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Allah says Christ is "only a messenger" (Chap. 5, "The Food" sect. 10, par. 75).
God treats men and women equally. Allah does not.
God says marriages today (Christian) are to be monogamous. Allah allows more than one wife.
There is no marriage in God's Paradise. Faithful men get many virgins in Allah's.
God says it is not necessary to have special days. Allah does: for example, Ramadan, the Moslem holy month during which Moslems fast during the day.
This list could be multiplied many times over, but there is no point. We have a saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck. God and Allah do not walk alike or quack alike. They are not the same and anyone who tries to say they are is blind to these obvious differences. To my knowledge, most Moslems do not say that Allah and the God of the Jews and Christians are the same being, which is a major reason Moslems count Christians as "infidels." Why would they say that if they really believed we were worshipping the true God?
And here's another Christian site that goes into more depth, comparing the Koran to the Bible.
Because as I said before, they understand him differently. Just as the orthodox of Judaism believe quite differently from Pentecostal Baptists. Same God. Different opinion. The things you mentioned seemed all a matter of perspective. Is there a biblical or koran-ial passage that states the two Gods are different? I have had this conversation with Muslim and Christian with a "yea" conclusion.
did you even read the sites?
"“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. (31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David…(34) Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
Sura 25.2 “He, Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and Who did not take to Himself a son, and Who has no associate in the kingdom, and Who created everything, then ordained for it a measure.”
About the Trinity:
"“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (18) I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."
Sura 4.171 “O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak lies against Allah, but speak the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three.”
About the crucifixion:
Bible: John 19:16-18 “Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. (17) And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: (18) Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.”
Sura 4.157 “And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.”
So, each book talks about Jesus differently? Each book refers to Jesus in respect to his relationship to God; one yes the other no?t
Okay, let me make this simple. These two books are mutually exclusive. That means that they cannot both be true. You have asserted on multiple occasions that the Bible is absolutely true on everything, even when history, science etc contradicts it. The Koran contradicts it. Therefore, by your own assertions, it cannot be true. It contradicts the Bible in terms of who Jesus was, what he accomplished, the concept of the trinity, the plan of salvation, how to worship God, what God's laws are, etc. I don't understand how a fundamental and dogmatic, insistent Christian such as you is finding this so difficult to understand.
Well let's think about it this way: The Koran does not deny Jesus. It denies his ties to God from the Christian perspective? Do they have commandments? Such as in the ten?
The trinity thing... not necessarily biblical... Or at least from one school of thought. Anyway, it wasn't really mentioned before the whole Nicaea thing...
She's saying a lot of U.U. type things here... in a really convoluted way.
Promise me I don't have to claim her... I cool with same religion... but same denomination might be too much for me.
Self has emerged (you think to be NOT convoluted?)
Faith without works (of faith) is dead.
I have already DISclaimed any likeness...
The father, son, and holy spirit all agree. There is one God.
But you just said Allah is the same as your God and Allah says there is no son or spirit. Which is it?
I thought you said Allah's "PEOPLE" say no son or spirit. The difference is immense. They still may be the same God; understood differently.
Do Muslims have commands?
No, Allah himself as dictated in the koran says that it's blasphemy to assert that he has a son or spirit and he denies either exist.
There are dozens of laws and commands in the koran.
Oooh this conversation can get a bit "meaty" and meat is not for all. From the way I see it, the bible states that God promised that from Ishmael will come a great nation. He did not promise that they would be in line with him. The "as a wild donkey" phrase seems to denote some rebellion. Since the Koran speaks of Jesus, it is likely that the words were written in response to his ministry. Maybe they rejected as the Jew. Same God. Let me also point out that the bible also states, "all who cry Lord, Lord, are not his" the hardness of heart forces a lot of "followers" into the rebellion of "a form of Godliness" meaning, "we will walk talk and quack like ducks until we can't"
Okay. One more time.
If you believe that God impregnated a virgin with himself, was put to death and rose from the dead, you do not believe in Allah. In fact, you are lying about Allah (according to the koran) which is blasphemy, which is punishable in many muslin countries today by death. Period.
You have admitted that you have not read the entire Bible. I highly doubt that if you're unable to read your own Holy book thoroughly that you would be willing to read the koran. Everything you're saying is opinion that is not based in knowledge or study (or thought, incidentally). There's no reason to continue with you.
Awwww! Let me just say one more thing to you...
No, I do not believe that God impregnated a virgin with himself. The child was infused with spirit. The "spirit" of God. He was different in that he was not born of man's seed. Jesus is referred to as God because he was "the essence of God" in human form. He was not touched by man until after his birth. No sin. He was perfect in that sense. As God is.
I have attested to having read the bible in its entirety several times. I have not read the Koran in depth. I talk to its followers and have visited their Mosque. From what I have understood from my discussion about the faith is that Id rather have Jesus. Thanks for listening
Confusion reigns, at least in my mind.
Jesus was not born of man's seed (sperm) but neither did God "impregnate" a virgin. Where then did Jesus get the necessary other half of a DNA strand to form the instructions to become a person?
Was Joseph the actual father, with any spirit ripped away (sent to Hell as unsaved?) and Jesus' spirit infused into the fetus? And that Mary was virgin just another biblical lie?
Was Jesus a clone of Mary, no sperm required?
Was it just that Mary was not virgin, so God impregnated an "experienced" woman with Himself?
Did God magically transport Joseph's sperm into Mary's uterus, bypassing the vaginal canal? Someone else's sperm (nasty thought)? Did God make up that gamete, so Jesus truly had no genetic father?
Was Jesus truly inhuman, just a single gamete magically grown to look like a full grown man but without the insides of that man? Or just an immaterial god, a hologram like thing if you will, showing a different appearance to the world each day?
No child was ever touched by human hands until after birth at that time in our history - what was your point in specifying that Jesus wasn't either? Does the comment answer any of this confusion?
He gave her the necessary tool from his spirit. As I was just reading online the Qur'an states that God impregnated Mary without a man; he was perfect as coming from God and even spoke as an infant. The quote from the book of Mary was the infant prophesying about dying and being raised again. ??? Sounds like the same story with a twist. Jesus did speak often of God as his "FATHER" some people believe what they want and don't believe what they want. All who cry Lord, Lord...
"He gave her the necessary tool from his spirit."
As in a gamete (He impregnated her)?
What does that sentence mean, considering that "No, I do not believe that God impregnated a virgin with himself."? Having a hard time understanding "tool" from a "spirit". I use tools all the time - they are always something that makes a task possible but is not part of the finished product. What is a "tool from his spirit", used to make a baby?
Gee, Sir... He did not write out the particular process of how the virgin became pregnant. But I imagine it was similar to his phrase, "Let there be light" and a big explosion occurred creating a light that would burn for... how old is the earth again??? I know you know that one...
So God said "Let there be Jesus" and a big explosion occurred in Mary's uterus... Gotcha.
No, no. You're missing the point. You said He did not impregnate Mary with His own essence; where then did the DNA that made up Jesus body come from if not from God? Made by God fresh, from dust? From another man? Joseph (either Joseph or any other man negates the immaculate conception concept)?
Jesus was human; where did his body originate - what DNA make up did he carry if not God's?
He DID impregnate her with his essence. The DNA of Jesus... interesting... would he have even had DNA? His make-up was not purely human in this sense. As Godspawn he was "untouched" by sin (man). He was made within his mothers womb. He did not have the y... hmmm. These questions fall under the category of information that we just CANNOT know. It's funny that most people accept scientific explanation without having to ask how and why on a large scale. Even when I ask why, I am flabbergasted at the response. Terms like that are not easily processed for me. I'm sure that I am not alone.
Exactly, yet you are here to tell us all about it, despite your admittance to the contrary. Essentially, you're making a life long commitment to something that "we just CANNOT know".
Baloney, we understand scientific explanation as opposed to your magical explanation about things "we just CANNOT know". It is hilarious.
Hilarious? I like hysterical better. Lol
It is baffling that you feel you understand scientific explanation about things we just CANNOT know an "educated" guess is what you get; so many are fine with that. For God, it is spirit; a totally different premise. Facts... that will never be found outside of spirit. When one is not willing to find God on HIS terms, he/she misses completely.
Sorry, but scientific explanations are about things we do know and not just educated guesses.
Yes, a false premise with false conclusions about things that cannot be known.
Yes, facts are usually not found with delusions and fantasies.
Baloney. Many have tried to find gods, but gods don't make themselves apparent as they love to play permanent games of hide and seek.
It is not the spirit of God that does the hiding. People come here everyday to refuse evidence of God. That is fine. But it does not illustrate a belief that God is a figment of imagination.
LOL. One cannot refuse what another fails to provide other than their overwrought imaginations and delusions.
If the "spirit of God" is not hiding, then it most certainly is entirely invisible and undetectable, literally identical to the non-existent.
Yet you haven't shown any evidence whatsoever that anything with even the semblance of a spirit exists. This is no "totally different premise" it's nothing but whimsical childish make believe.
So since spirit is make believe, you must mean that one must put himself into make believe mode to comprehend this nonsense.....Which is exactly what you are doing? And you are right....REAL facts don't matter in the make believe realm. Of course, those who have actually grown up know that REAL facts are the only means by which the veracity of an assertion can be established. How bizarre.
So God did impregnate the virgin Mary and your statement to the contrary was an error. With His "essence" (whatever that means) if nothing else.
I have always been taught that Jesus was a god in a man's body. It is the only way he could understand what it means to be human, the only way to be tempted with human desires and overcome them. Jesus was a human being. If he was not, if he was just another god walking the surface of the earth, then his suffering and pain was meaningless. It would also mean the Mary was not his mother as a mother provides half the information needed to create a baby. The child is half her in a very real sense.
That means that Jesus had human DNA and all the rest that goes into a human body. If you have decided that you don't accept that Jesus was human it would explain much of this, but would also mean that you have devised a completely new religion (the virgin birth and reanimation of a 3 day old human corpse is central to Christianity).
"As Godspawn he was "untouched" by sin (man). " I really have to question the implication that the act of reproduction (sex) is considered a sin by God, particularly as He designed man with it as the only method of reproduction and ordered that it be used to populate the earth. I understand that the early church, including many of the participants at Nicaea, felt this way, but it is nonsense to think so.
People accept scientific explanations because they come with a "how" - something that most people appreciate as evidence the statement is true. "Why" (in the sense I think you are using it) is never in the domain of science, only in philosophy and/or religion, and has nothing to do with truth as it is very seldom verifiable.
You twist my words often... God impregnated Mary with his spirit. HIS dna. Jesus was human in every other way (yes carrying the stuff of Mary, though I don't know) He was born with truth. Man had sin. All the children born from Adam have the same sin. God has no sin. He produced a baby with no sin. No, sex is not sinful if done according to guidelines.
I'm sorry - I have no intention of twisting your words. I just didn't understand when you clearly said God did NOT impregnate Mary. Then you said He DID impregnate her, but only with spirit. Not you've decided that He impregnated Mary with His DNA in order that Jesus be human.
You can see my problem - your first statement made no sense and, understanding that, you rescinded and changed it. To something that ALSO made no sense and again needed to be changed, which you have no done.
So no twisting, just a search for understanding. I did not intend offense, just didn't understand.
No problem Just go back and check the context and wording. I understand what I am saying clearly. You will...
Unfortunately, I cannot read what you mean when you change the meaning of the words.
"No, I do not believe that God impregnated a virgin with himself." means, to me, that God did not impregnate Mary. No sex, no transfer of essence, nothing.
Then "He DID impregnate her with his essence. " means, to me, that God DID impregnate her with His essence. No sperm, no DNA, but only spirit. No sex.
"would he have even had DNA? His make-up was not purely human in this sense." means that Jesus had no DNA (verified later in the same post) and was inhuman.
"God impregnated Mary with his spirit. HIS dna. " means that God put His essence AND DNA into Mary. Not necessarily through the mechanics of sex, but He impregnated her.
You went from no impregnation to impregnating with spirit only to impregnating with spirit AND DNA. And there is no other way to read those statements within commonly used meanings.
So, I will sit back; and gleefully remember that I have been nothing but consistent. I am amazed that, in your desire to implicate me on some sort of perjury, you posted "some" of my words. I remember each conversation. This case against me will be thrown out. While my accuser is equally charged. If you quote more of the exchange, my context is clearly in the same direction. God stayed in heaven and Jesus was first-born of all others who would come after him. Though I do believe the others were or will be given a chance. Mary played a huge part. The specifics of the matter were comments made from speculation or possibility as clearly stated.
A long time ago, the church prescribed that sex be done ONLY to produce children and ONLY in the missionary position. People caught using other positions were in deep trouble.
My son and his wife are over. With their 4 small children.
Pizza is in the oven, waiting for the buzzer to go off. Hard to hear through commotion.
While waiting for the BSU game to start.
Son wants to go for a walk
Two children screaming and crying; seems one pulled hair on second, who then hit first.
Preoccupied? Whatever would make you say that?
I actually meant with the subject of sex... you seem overly focused.
A reply to an earlier post:
"No, sex is not sinful if done according to guidelines. "
Plus, the subject has been on impregnating a virgin, who remains a virgin afterwards. Would not want to give the impression that I thought the bible lied when it says a virgin gave birth to a little boy. In the dark ages.
Oh yes, and this is supposed to make perfect sense, an explanation that is clear, concise and understandable by all. You actually have no idea what you're talking about and just making up stuff as you go along. Hilarious.
Really? That would then discredit thr claim that Jesus was human in any way, and was only "spirit" whatever that means, hence was a God. Of course, only humans can die, Gods cannot die. Obviously then, Jesus never died on the cross because He was not human, making the entire Resurrection a charade.
"Pay no attention to the man on the cross"
Then, like so many other Christians, you have been duped, by your own admission that Jesus was God in human form, but was not actually human.
I never said that Jesus was God in human form. I believe that he was as God. He was human with divinity infused. Adam was also made of God. But he did not have a birth canal. Jesus was made of God inside the untouched female. The female remains untouched until the Son is born. No human participants. No sin.
Have you even read any of other scripture from other religions? It would appear you haven't, hence you can't make any intelligent comments regarding any differences.
Yes they do. And the imaginary character's law book is "interpreted" in such a way as to hate everything that the corrupt leadership hates....which is usually women, homosexuals, foreigners, people who want to copulate without stifling restrictions, and anyone who doesn't accept their man-made, imaginary God's laws. Can you explain why that is?
Well, Sir that is purely a matter of perspective. For me, God hates no one; but sin. He gets to make the rules of what that is. And anyone gets to decide to take it or leave it. But it seems that the "leavers" are never at peace with their decision. just kidding... a little.
No, He doesn't hate anyone. He just sends billions to Hell because He loves them so much.
Because he is preparing a place... for those who follow and trust him. And he wants his light alone to shine within that place. There will be no darkness. The billions decided.
Well, that's kind of what I mean. Those people that God designed and produced that are unable to follow or trust blindly are just SOL. He still loves them but will condemn them to Hell.
While it is a popular myth of the Christian sect that everyone has a choice about what to believe (necessary I suppose or God becomes a monster) it just isn't true. There are an awful lot of people that cannot simply control their inner beliefs. Overt actions, yes, but not inner belief systems.
Perspective... it is a call to bring your thought pattern under subjection to his word. Each day we have many choices to make. When God's word is in your heart you hear, "Thou shalt not kill" just as some idiot cuts you off in the fast lane in a "bottle neck" when God's word is more important to you than your own desire; you do not reach under the passenger's seat. Lol... get it?
No. What I DO get is that I have a conscience and won't kill a motorist as a result. Not that some imaginary creature living in my heart muscle quickly climbs onto my shoulder and whispers into my ear when someone cuts me off on the freeway.
Plainly put, I can determine the difference between right and wrong without the use of a holy book, a priest or anyone else describing a mythical creature with rules.
And so you should. But as for me and MY house... I fully get that bible and God are not your cup o' tea. Do you understand that the mentioned are very much my cup??? And it runneth over???
I don't know...
It sounds as if you are saying that you are incapable of determining right from wrong. Amoral - someone that has no morals outside of what they've been told by someone else.
That's scary. Possible - I know there are people out there like that - but scary when it is claimed as an excuse to believe in a myth. It is also rather scary when someone claims to get their morals from the bible, as the book and the God described in that book both carry an awful lot of rules and concepts that are totally unacceptable to civilized people today.
So believe in the bible as desired, but don't try and get your morals from there. Find them yourself - any civilized person can construct a far superior moral code than what is given in that barbaric book. You can even (and a great many people do) construct your god with morals that are civilized by today's standards.
I can understand all of this but I think that you are confusing me with others. I am aware that the bible is used as the fundamental standard for many. Myself included. But the relationship formed with God is guide. It does not go against what is written. The father is not on our level. He says what perfect is for me. His standard I aspire to reach. Not my peers.
Then it's a wonder you aren't already behind bars.
Every single believer I know has that "relationship" with their imaginary god, and every single one of them has defined that god, and his morals, to suit themselves. Their god did not act in an immoral manner, and does not ask them to do so.
This is plainly at odds with the biblical god that commits genocide, that sends children to Hell for the sins of their fathers, that tells people to keep slaves or stone someone to death for adultery or wearing cloth of different materials. Hopefully your god has not done these things either, and does not tell you to do them. It is not, in other words, the god of the bible.
It helps an awful lot to make your god in the image you want him to be, and only then use Him as a guide as to how to live your life. I trust that your god is a moral creature, not a biblical one, for the two are NOT the same.
I am only telling the story again. You are not being asked to participate. This thing is blinding to some. I am not asking you to paralyze your sight. You see things well enough for yourself. Anything else???
Yes. As a believer I assume you are very familiar with "feelings" and emotions.
What does it feel like when your are inescapably led down a path of though and logic culminating in a conclusion that your god isn't what you thought it was? That your belief system requires a large "adjustment" to conform to the reality you know?
And regardless of the feeling, what do you do about it when that happens? Do you change the belief or ignore the logic/conclusion and keep what you have, knowing it cannot be real?
What happens when you are inescapably eye to eye with spirit and you remember all the times you were offered the kingdom of God and refused flat-out? How many "new" developments will you accept before you recognize that all that is supposedly known is only fleeting information lasting only until the next new development? What happens when you look up and see the King of kings coming through a split in the sky; and he says, "Depart from me?"
I lean not unto my own understanding. I acknowledge God. He leads me.
Sorry, but relationships are formed with people and perhaps even some pets. Your God is nothing more than some words in book written by men, hence it's not possible to have a relationship with the written word.
Sorry, but that means absolutely nothing and is as far away from any kind of truth there is in reality. Saying that merely makes you look incredibly ignorant and deluded or just something a small child would say in a kindergarten playground.
I doubt that the original speaker of that statement was playing on a playground. Your statement is (in reality) full of ignorance (of spirit) but since that is NOT a polite way to speak to people, I won't say it aloud.
Yes, I know, it was Matthew, Mark and Luke who made reference to that statement.
Even though, you just did. Of course, since your reference to "spirit" have never been shown to exist, one cannot be ignorant of it, other than to claim it does exist.
Ah, wilderness, you have such a way with words...well said and so true! Wish there was a *Like* button!
You bring up a very good point actually. If someone does not believe in the things God does or have that love for God in their hearts then why do they feel they have to pick apart the bible. If one does not believe then they do not have to worry about the bible.
I will say this though,for those that do believe in the bible, there are still the ones that pick out certain parts and have no clue about other parts.
The Bible does not threaten anybody, but there are a few things that don't add up, so there are doubts about the Bible being the word of God? We have already written a few hubs about this subject, feel free to check them out.
May God bless you?
Any book sitting on a shelf poses no threat at all. It's when a person picks it up, reads it and starts to put into action the words written there. If the words written there are threatening, then that person is reiterating a threat, hence they become the threat. It doesn't matter whether or not people believe the entities within the book are real, it is the uttered threats that matter.
This is simple to understand.
It's interesting that you say it that way, ATM. In the movie, The Book of Eli, Gary Oldman's character is on a quest to find a bible - and a character asks him why this book is so important. After all, it's just a book. The response? "It's not 'just a book;' it's a WEAPON!"
Interesting, indeed, Mo. I think I'll get around to watching that movie now.
It's kinda like an assault weapon, it can sit on the shelf and not cause a bit of harm to anyone, until it gets picked up and used.
It's a fantastic movie. It's got a good deal of spiritual content, though, which may be what steered you away from it the first time around. BUT, it's worth watching, if, for no other reason, because Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman are brilliant together.
Well, I wasn't really steered away from it, I just didn't know anything about it. However, I'll make an attempt to watch it and get back to you. Thanks for the recommendation.
I have to admit that I LOVE Denzel as a badass, which he is in this film. Badass, not bad guy - to this day, I refuse to watch Training Day because I don't want to see him play a bad guy.
Then, you really don't want to see Safe House or American Gangster.
I have seen American Gangster...and I liked it. Safe House, I sorta half watched - was doing other things while my husband was watching it. So, I guess it's fair to say that I have enjoyed him in a bad guy role. Didn't think about that. But I still have some weird aversion to Training Day. Maybe it's simple irritation at the fact that it's the only role for which he's ever won a Best Actor Oscar, and there are so many others that he should have won. Or, it's just completely irrational. I could go for that too. LOL
Oh, and I'm right there with ya on the analogy to an assault weapon. It's so sad to realize what we're capable of bastardizing for our own benefit. I have never, to my knowledge, assaulted anyone with Scripture, and I absolute abhor watching other people do it. IF you see the Bible as nothing more than a weapon, and are constantly hell bent on defending it as such, then you're missing the whole point of it. That is, of course, people in general that I'm addressing, not "you" personally.
I see the Bible as a book written by men showing a snapshot of how people behaved and what they believed centuries ago.
Even Richard Dawkins views the Bible as a book of beautiful literature with many interesting things to say.
The key element is what people do with the book, do they read it and find beautiful literature or do they use it as a weapon?
The book, "Mein Kampf", written by Hitler is a book with a lot of interesting things, but also shows what he thought and believed himself, many ugly and horrific things, yet we don't see people using it as a weapon in the same way we see the Bible used. Curious, isn't it?
I see it much the same way. Of course, as a believer, I see great spiritual value in it, but do NOT deny that it is often misused to abuse those who do not, which, unfortunately, is done by people who claim it as their spiritual authority.
As to Mein Kampf, I agree.
Unfortunately, Mo, I have yet to hear any explanation regarding that term, hence for me it is somewhat meaningless.
I can understand that.
For me, it's spirit-the essence of my being. My soul, psyche, my center. I find value in scripture for maintaining my spiritual health.
Without an acceptable definition of spirit being agreed upon, perhaps I should have said that there is value in it (for me) as regards maintaining my psychological well being.
I'm asking this to you because I actually respect and love you.
Can you define a spirit?
Not to universally acceptable standards, probably, but I can give it my best shot.
I'd say a spirit is the absolutely infinite energy that is in each of us that connects to the energy in others. It's what, IMO, motivates us to live, to move, to be. And it's the deepest part of our individual identity-as I mentioned, our essence, our center.
Make any sense?
So when I define it that way, because I can't conceive of any other way, I see it as holy, sacred, and what makes us, more than anything else, entirely and truly human.
And I love you too!
I understand - and you're the first person EVER that has attempted a positive definition. Most of the time if I ask someone to define "spirit" I get a list of everything that it isn't. Not anything that it actually is.
Well, I have kind of a hard time thinking of anything it's not...weird, huh?
I mean, it's not corporeal. But it is, or can be, just about anything else.
"it's not physical, it's not something you can see or touch, it's not something that can be explained, only experienced, it's not .... " I think you see where I'm going.
And yes, you get brownies. Come and get 'em :-)
I so see where you're going. That's the biggest problem I have with so many discussions of spiritual things. How can you prove anything as a positive by presenting only its negatives?
On my way!
My general definition is that it is the me that would be me if I was suddenly transported into another body.
The me that is separate from the physical form.
Does that make any sense?
Do I get ooey gooey fudgie brownies for being the first EVER?!?
The thing is that energy is well understood and no such thing as infinite energy in each of us exists, let alone connects us to some energy of others. We can only be connected by the physical interaction we have with one another.
If what you said was true, you would have a connection with every person on the planet, which is clearly not the case.
What motivates us is our brains, what we think, how we feel and what we do with our lives. And, it is how our brains function with each of us that can determine how we do those things, whether or not we might be plagued with a disorder that does not allow our brains to function properly.
Sorry Mo, but again those terms are rather meaningless without some sort of description as to what they pertain to in the human body. Are you talking about the brain or some other organ? Spirit, soul, center are meaningless terms.
That's entirely different and that is a meaningful explanation, however, I can't see how a particular set of myths and superstitions are maintaining ones psychological well being. The brain works much better when it is based in reality using reason and rationale. Religions are an escape from that, hence can only serve to provide false hopes and ideals, things that don't actually maintain a psychological well being.
The reality of the matters of spirit are only available to those who give their hearts. The brain is much too rigid. It does not know; and it does not know that it does not know; it THINKS itself to be sufficient.. Spirit is tried by spirit; not brain. The bible also tells us that.
Meaning "I'm smarter than you because I have a second mind that is much superior to yours and can imagine things yours can't. Things that I will then claim are real whether they are or not".
Wrong again... it simply means that if you would realize that the brain is only a small part of YOU and that it reacts to what the spirit of you puts into it; you would then be able to "see".
As always, it seems to come down to evidence.
You claim an invisible, undetectable, supernatural part of you that exists in another dimension, universe or place. You claim it is superior in finding truth, but can produce no truth it exists or has produced any truth itself. You offer your own imagined scenarios as proof of it's superiority, scenarios that you can again offer no evidence are true.
Can you explain, again, how that makes sense? That your imagined invisible part gives superior imagined things and is thus better than reality? All because you think your imagination produces reality?
I didn't say nothing about no 'nother dimension! the spirit exists inside of you. Take yourself for an example. Your adequate brain matter does not see spirit. Yet you refute it daily. I try to give you a "real" explanation in that the Tooth Fairy is not worthy of my constant rebuttal. She is NOT real. Therefore I waste a considerable amount of time trying to convince others of her bogusness. In turn, you spend a GREAT deal of time trying to refute "her" for you to be so sure that "she" is unreal. You have been wrestling with spirit for a long time... Do you have a bruise on your hip?
That is because the brain does not "see", it is our eyes that see.
Neither is the spirit you refer.
Kinda like the waste of time in trying to convince you your spirit is bogus?
Sorry, but you can't wrestle with something that isn't there.
"Sorry, but you can't wrestle with something that isn't there."
Is that not what you do everyday??? Wrestling with something that does NOT exist??? Thanks for your help! I thought that would be much harder. But you DO see what I'm saying.
What makes your thoughts different from mine? We both have brains.
Yes. Eyes not seeing something claimed to be there results in disbelief. Why would you expect anything different? No refutation needed, none attempted, just disbelief as the speaker repeats the obvious falsehood.
But why don't you believe in the tooth fairy? Because your eyes can't see her? Do you recognize the silliness of saying it is right for you to disbelieve unsupported claims but not for me to do the same? Just because it is you making the claim? Do you have an explanation why I should believe in your (unsupported) claim of spirit while you refuse to believe in a (unsupported) claim for the tooth fairy?
No wrestling with your imagination - I leave that to you - so no bruises. As I do not put my own imaginations into the "reality" box, no wrestling there, either. I suspect you have no hip bruises either as imagination is put firmly into that "believe" box, where belief rules supreme and is superior to reason, evidence or logic. It does work very well for those uninterested in such mundane things, and raises the happiness level considerably.
Baloney, the brain IS you, there is no evidence of any spirits or abilities to "see" beyond how our eyes work.
Sorry, but hearts pump blood, that is the function of that organ. Brains are what we use for thinking.
Sorry, but the Bible does not talk about the brain or how it works because no one back then knew anything about it. You should try reading books sometime.
But the bible does speak about the world hanging upon nothing long before the brain caught on... Remember?
The world does not hang upon nothing, that is absurd.
If it is hanging, where is the rope (cable, spider silk, thread, whatever) attached?
If it is resting, where is the flat spot that 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds sitting on a dirt pile will produce?
If neither is true, and there is no cable or flat spot, what is it doing? What does the bible say?
I just told you... hanging on nothing. Suspended by grace... carried by spirit. No cables no flat piles
Suspended on a human concept, carried by imagination.
I'd have to say the biblical writers had much to learn about reality. I would not recommend suspending your purse by grace or carrying it with a spirit...I suspect that either will lose you a purse very quickly.
Sorry, but that is your understanding of the world?
You obviously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
It works for me. I can't imagine that it works for you. But, I don't feel that it has to work for anyone but me.
And it's not the stories that do it. Although, even if it were, I've known those who say that certain books, memories of things they've heard from others-have helped them through difficult emotional times. That it's the Bible that I'm referring to is what makes it objectionable.
...sharper than any two-edged sword that... judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
It judges... hmmm I said that!
The bible is not simply used as a weapon; it actually is. Some people are blinded by the light of it. Some prefer the lie (now that is much easier on the "eyes"). Some people are offended by scripture; no mistake about why. It judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. That can be really painful sometimes. But to actually know truth is freeing. Yes. That is scriptural.
A book is not really a weapon, technically, it is actually the person who wields it who becomes the weapon, much like an assault rifle. And as we all know, weapons being used on others is very dangerous and causes a lot of damage.
Double-edged sword. It often cuts both ways. the person speaking the truth is not at fault unless adding or subtracting. Unlike an assault rifle in that it cuts billions with one word (I mean shot).
Not all people are comforted by truth; all are freed by it. I can agree to that. And I thank God every day for the freedom I have in my life.
I think it because it brings conviction and truth to areas of darkness in people’s lives. The last thing darkness wants is for the light to expose it. If you’ve got sin in your heart and don’t want to change, the Bible can be a real nuisance. The Bible says it all- “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb4:12
This says it all:
It is written... ye shall KNOW the truth and it will MAKE you free.
It is also written, all who cry Lord, Lord are not His. Some will say, didn't we do all manner of things in your name? And he will say back, Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I know you not.
Jesus showed us how to do "in the name of God"
Guess it lied again, huh?
Neither you nor anyone else knows the truth of the very basis of the religion: does your God even exist. You are NOT free of ignorance there and will not be this side of the grave. Or is that how you interpret this saying - by assuming God is there and you will know when dead?
How long since you attacked a temple, throwing people you didn't like outside?
There seems to be a bit of confusion on the matter but I just found this quote.. In 1076, Pope Gregory VII wrote this to a Muslim leader: “We believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way…”
If you're able to focus your mind effectively and consistently, there's no need for fairy dust. That stuff is strictly for neophytes.
Some people's thoughts are based on the logic of mathematics, Miss C. In mathematics, negatives always cancel out positives. Some Atheists are very left brained.
The problem is not the Bible as a literary or historical or even religious text.
The problem---the source of fear and concern for some of us is what people do with the Bible; how they wield it as a weapon and how they use it to justify bigotry, discrimination, violence.
The spirit. The soul. The psyche. The center. Essence For they that deny they have either (that don't include blood cells; or may be seen on video); no explanation exists. We may "define" til the cows come home.
It's for the ones who choose His way.
People who have something to hide think the bible is a threat. There are those who use His words against others are the ones that say they he does not exist. If you'e in doubt, ask Him. Him as in the Man above. He will answer.
Niiice Fear of exposure for sure may be a catalyst. Judgmental is how I'm viewed because I quote many scriptures to respond to posts. My entire thought process here is biblical. Few realize that it is the word that judges. Not me. I am "guilty" also. I say that too. But I guess the bible overshadows and the "blame" shifts.
Agreed. People twist things too get what they want. Not the Word if God. :-)
I do not agree to that. People twist everything, even scripture. It is an art perfected by those who prefer to place their lamps underneath bushels; and those who wish to dismiss them altogether. Thanks for helping. It is important to properly use scripture.
"Please help me to understand how one may possibly come to the conclusion that the bible threatens..."
The Bible is not a threat to anybody, of course. That's why no responsible person ever calls for the Bible to be banned or burned (or any other holy text, for that matter).
Instead, responsible atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers seek to increase knowledge, rational thinking and general skepticism. If anything, they would encourage people to read the Bible, since they know that doing so is more likely to lead to non-belief than otherwise:
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."--Isaac Asimov
Moreover, it has been found that atheists and nonbelievers are more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians. That should tell you something. It's not the Bible that is a threat, it's (many of) the people that take it so seriously.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians."--Gandhi.
Just so you, it is important to note that the study of scripture with the wrong intent is futile. When the knowledgable study the book, they miss the part about it being foolishness to the wise and those who are perishing. It is in there. Those words are scary if you misinterpret the scripture. You easily misinterpret when the spirit of God is not near. You get suspicious. Then you search in another book and misinterpret that and it magically confirms that the bible is not worth the paper. It happens very often. The spirit of God cannot be "reasoned" he does not think as we.
Shakespeare wrote: "The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
There are an awful lot of "wise" religious believers who claim to know the mind of God.
"The spirit of God cannot be "reasoned" he does not think as we."
How do you know that?
The bible makes both those statements. Here, "...uses the foolish things to confound the wise" and "his thoughts are not our thoughts." Google, they can be found.
My thought process here is biblical.
Jesus showed us what the mind of God looks like. He has the mind of God. We through the spirit have the mind of God. We know the mind of God if we look at Jesus. The red words are my absolute favorite!!!
There are many more ways to NOT know the mind of Christ though.
"My thought process here is biblical."
So to understand God, we need to read the Bible. How do you know that?
But how do you know that reading the Bible made you understand God?
That's an odd question. It's like, "How do you know water is wet?"
Put another way, you say, essentially, "knowledge of God is based on the Bible." What is the Bible based on?
I'm asking where does the Bible derive its authority?
Love, or any other feeling, cannot give authority to a book.
The bible derives its authority from the spirit of God. I thought everyone knew that...
And we come full circle. My friend, you have confirmed the fatal problem with your religion (or one of them, anyway):
You believe in God.
How do you know that God exists? Rather, where does your knowledge of God come from?
And what is the Bible based on?
This is known as circular logic.
A lawyer might say "my case rests."
you know you had to twist my words to cross your point right? That's confounded. Can I rest mine too?
If I twisted anything, feel free to point it out. There haven't been a lot of words written here, so not much room for misunderstanding.
When you asked me what the bible was based on; my response was love, not God. Then you rested. You asked who/what gives authority after that... remember? I understand your circular argument thing; I have heard it a lot. The battle you have just "won" you will win every time. So will ATM; Getitrite; Wilderness etc... God has prepared an easy way out if we want it. Most grab for it.
By the way, you quoted Shakespeare not long ago. Do you know his work? If so, how do you know him from other writers? How do you find out about his meanings, context, and subtext? Do you visit a hardware store or ice cream parlor for all things Shakespeare?
Your response "Love" was from a misunderstanding (willful or otherwise) of my question, so I clarified my specific question. And as I said, love cannot give authority to any book, which is why I clarified my meaning.
You admit defeat, which is admirable. Few theists would be willing to do so. However, the question you must face is why, in spite of all logic and evidence against it, you continue to believe in this thing that humans created, called "Christianity", this book that humans have written, called "The Bible."
When your relative is sick, you turn to a trained medical professional, a man or woman educated in science and committed to evidence and reason.
When you fly on an airplane, you trust in the physical laws, as professional engineers and scientists have understood them.
When you use the electronic device you are reading this on, you are relying on the chemistry and physics that the scientific method, and the commitment to evidence and logic, have discovered.
And yet, when it comes to the most profound, most impenetrable mysteries of the universe, where the truth is far from obvious, suddenly you eschew logic and evidence. It all goes out the window, and you are happy to trust in the writings of an ancient, primitive people.
That is a conflict that you will have to reconcile for yourself.
By the way, you quoted Shakespeare not long ago. Do you know his work? If so, how do you know him from other writers? How do you find out about his meanings, context, and subtext? Do you visit a hardware store or ice cream parlor for all things Shakespeare?
I've studied Shakespeare like anyone else. What are you getting at?
It seems that for the beginning miscommunication the question was changed from what is the bible based on? To who gives it authority? Is THAT asking the same question? Nobody is calling you on that.
Defeat? Yes, you won your argument. But did you??? The logic against it is not credible enough. I cannot go against what I know. You sure aren't.
As for the final, you know very well what I'm getting at. You are probably smarter than all of us put together with half your brain tied behind your back. Almost smarter than the cool one with all those college F's.
Asking "what is this based on" is the same as asking "where does this get its authority."
For instance, a school textbook is "based on" the knowledge and expertise of its authors. That is what gives the textbook "authority."
You must ask yourself what you really know, what you believe, what you want to believe, and what is it all based on. Now, the world will not end if you believe the "wrong thing." But you may just spend your life chasing shadows.
No, I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at. Unless you're trying to imply that I worship Shakespeare? If you clarify your point I can respond better.
"You must ask yourself what you really know, what you believe, what you want to believe, and what is it all based on. Now, the world will not end if you believe the "wrong thing." But you may just spend your life chasing shadows." Hope you didn't mind me borrowing your statement. I think you needed to hear it again.
"For instance, a school textbook is "based on" the knowledge and expertise of its authors. That is what gives the textbook "authority."
Now that's a load right there. (question) What was the movie based on? (Answer) Uh the expertise and authority of Wes Craven about horror. Really??? Not a man with a burnt face and knives on each finger??? Cute
I will "dance" with you.
When you want to know Shakespeare you go to his writings, his friends. When you want to know the spirit of God... can you follow?
Parroting what I said back at me does not change your need to reconcile your conflicting beliefs for yourself. Again, it's no skin off my back. Just something for you to think about.
There's a reason I referred to a textbook and not a movie.
Shakespeare was an actual person, for whom we have evidence of his existence. The same cannot be said for God. They are not equivalent.
Moreover, even if we assume that God does exist, how do we know that he has "written" anything?
Moreover again, suppose we assume (1) God exists, (2) he has written something. (Two very big assumptions right there.) We have another problem: you claim the Bible is God's writing--how do you know that? How do you know the Bhagavad Gita is not his writing, for instance?
Faith is the answer to how we "know" just about anything about historical info. Faith. We cannot please God without it. We cannot really learn about God effectively without it. We can't really go to God effectively without it. Faith.
But faith and knowledge have no connection - they are the antithesis of each other.
You cannot, for instance, "know" god through faith as you cannot know anything by using faith (desire, emotional reaction, imagination, etc.) to produce conclusions. While faith will declare that something (God, maybe) is true, that declaration comes only from imagination, not reality, and knowledge cannot be found that way.
Are you referring to religious faith? Or faith in general?
Never thought about it - I guess faith in general.
I see "faith" as a decision to accept a desired conclusion as truth and reality without ever actually knowing if it is or not. The use of emotions to make decisions rather than rational thought. Use of ignorance as a method to "find" truth, guessing as to what is true or not rather than testing and verifying.
Some people want to say that everyone uses "faith" as "knowledge" is never completely available. We will never know every tiny detail and so use faith to fill in the blanks. An incorrect viewpoint, IMHO, as the "faith" being discussed in that manner is still based on the best knowledge we have, not a simple desire that it be true or that we are ignorant of anything else.
If you are referring to faith in general, then I disagree to an extent. I agree that in some cases people use faith as a period(meaning that is the end of it all). But for others, faith is actually the beginning of a journey of discovery. A lot of discoveries started with some type of faith (general,not all religious) that something could be done or real followed by researching and testing of all variables in the development in order to complete the discovery.
It takes faith first. The coach does not give the play explanation to the other team. Right??? If you don't believe; you have no right. During life with God, many confirmations come. I have surely had many.
Again, I respect you for admitting that your beliefs are not based on any real evidence or logic. It's just blind faith. Many or most religious believers would not be so brave.
It just seems that you would have to reconcile (a) your need for evidence and logic when it comes to most areas of your life (from important things like medical care or the food you eat, to relatively unimportant things like Googleing what the population of a city is), with (b) your lack of need for evidence/ logic when it comes to the most profound and mysterious questions of reality, the universe and existence.
Faith in God brings confirmation. Did you read that before? Or have you decided, like the others to toss faith aside until evidence and proof fails to answer questions like the UNIMPORTANT age of the dirt we trample? Did you know that real evidence and logic depends on perspective? Some people believe in the lochness. They have pictures (I do too btw ) some believe that Elvis is still with us (they have pics too ) Faith in God is not solely based on feelings. God sends confirmation to his own. God allows you to know that he is with you. He shows himself in many ways to the faithful. I have said this before; I guess you have no faith in what I'm saying. If you did; you'd "find out" too.
So with what intent should we read the Bible? And should we read all instruction manuals with the same intent? How are we to gain the comprehension of our reading, if reason is relinquished at the outset? This seems completely absurd, and would cause me to think that maybe I have been tricked. Are you capable of even entertaining that thought for a nano-second? FEAR is merciless
The bible is a book written for the children of God. It is for those who want the guidelines. It really messes with the proud and knowledgable. When you come to God, you leave the old man behind (the usual m/o) and put on spirit (the born again) and THEN pick up the bible for instruction. It says it is set up to confound the "wise". They come with their info for God to disprove. It happens often. He said, "Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy-laden; and I will give you rest." It is true. But the bible says also that "you must first believe that he is... how else may you expect to receive from him."
"Uh, Lord, I know you aint there, but show me your ways." How does that sound??? Foolishness; rite???
So the Bible is for those with no pride and no knowledge?! Quick....sign me up!
If the Bible is set up to confound the wise, then it must be assumed that the Bible is only for the ignorant and foolish in society. This is implied from your own words. So why would God ask the wise to join with the foolish among us, and assume that somehow, through their brazen ignorance, they are more astute at interpreting His complexity? Unless, of course, God is foolish Himself. Why should a wise man lower himself to the level of a gullible fool....as if the wise man should think it reasonable to assume the fool is correct, based solely upon childish absurdities and vile silly threats?
Then, by your logic, I could do the same thing in regards to "The Lord of the Rings" or "The Wizard of Oz" or "Harry Potter"
What would you do if someone asked you to believe that the characters in any of these novels already existed, before you even started to read them? Would you be so willing to do what you suggest that we do?
No...it's more like...."Lord, please show me proof of your existence, so that I can believe in you. I will be waiting for a reply.....In Jesus' name.....Amen"
The Lord gives wisdom. He gave Solomon a lot. The bible is speaking of ones who know so much already that it closes off the ears in search of what THEY want. What God wants is actually unimportant to them. "Wise in their own eyes" "thinking more highly of yourself than you ought." Google those phrases if you need clarification.
Just how does your God give wisdom if His aim is to confound the wise? Why do you feel the need to continue to flip-flop? This is bare faced dishonesty. These beliefs are inherently evil, as they make people say psychotic things.
It is completely obvious that this is what YOU are doing. You have already closed your ears to reason, and you search the bible to confirm what you want it to say. Of course, you selfishly and arrogantly believe that you are better than others, who actually read books with the true understanding of how to actually read something. You have NOTHING special. How absurd.
We don't know of any Gods, or what they might want, and neither do you. Stating that you do, because you read an ancient book of silly childish rubbish is disturbing.
It is you who needs clarification. Rejecting deception is not "thinking more highly of oneself than one ought" It is the way we negotiate life. You too. You don't actually allow yourself to be taken advantage of like this in your life outside of religion. Your mindset is a sad one indeed, as you feel that you have to force yourself to be dishonest, while pretending to know things you certainly don't know....because you are so addicted to this man-made delusion. It's very sad to see what this does to a person's mind.
Whoa, your first paragraph is really angry sounding. You mad? You miss context often. I'm starting to think it is done purposely. knowledge is good with wisdom to boot. God gives wisdom to all that asks. But we may become so knowledgable that we forget fundamental truths. God is boss and all that he says, does, is, is good. When we allow ourselves to forget, our knowledge becomes a weight. We are open to whatever. When you don't stand firm for the fundamental, you fall for anything your mind may fathom. And we all may come up with some doozies... right?
Just answer the questions and stop with the deception.
Dishonesty is the only context I see here.
So you are purposely trying to deceive us with this mindless nonsense, by asserting that the answer is (A) and (not A) at the same time. If you remember...you have already vilified wisdom. You cannot, now, assert that, somehow, that you were promoting wisdom. Your God confounds the wise....REMEMBER?Why do Christian have to be so deceitful?
Nothing more than mindless regurgitation. Very sad that a mind can be taken over to this extent, by the foolish imaginations of ancient ignorant charlatans....indoctrinated into the mind of a helpless child. This is why religion should be kept away from children until they can develop their critical thinking skills. Your mind has been completely taken over. Please get some help.
Should I seek help from you about the spirit of God? Your claim is that you have no idea about spirit. When I want information about... What is your expertise again???
And when I want to know about spirit; I consult with the expert in that field (his name is Jesus).
Dishonesty is untrue. I speak truth. Sorry it confounds you, but it was promised in scripture that it would.
Since you have no evidence of neither a spirit or a God, your request is completely absurd. And anyone seeking such farcical entities will drive themselves to madness. That has been displayed here.
Neither do you. This psychotic drivel does not count, as you have not provided any evidence that any such a thing as a spirit exists.
I am an expert at detecting liars.
That is more madness.... Thinking that one can consult with an ancient dead man about something that doesn't even exist is pure madness. How did you get so taken by this garbage. Please stop insulting your own intelligence.
It doesn't confound me. I know exactly what is going on, as I understand psychology. This has everything to do with psychology and absolutely nothing to do with any Gods or spirits, because these things are delusions bought on by manipulations of the mind. THEY DON'T EXIST! Even if you believe them to be true, you are only believing what an ancient dishonest ignoramus wrote. Yes dishonesty is UNTRUE, and one can't possibly be speaking truth when parroting the assertions of a lying immoral author.
"I am an expert at detecting liars."
You have not proven that to me. To say that I am a liar is a lie. But you cannot even detect your own.
Ouch!!! Gotta run. Finish later.
And another thing... I know a bit about psychological deficiency. It seems to have a lot to do with a malfunction in the brain (you know that thing that makes decisions for you) If I see one having an angry outburst about imaginary things, I'd be amazed if he is not suffering psychological upset.
As for being confounded; do you know the spirit of God? ... No? Ok, confounded. No problem by me I I understand spirit. I don't mind if you don't believe me. Actually, it is expected that you don't. "Drivel" all day if you like.
The prayer says, "Do what I want first, then MAYBE we can talk" well, then he has to be sure he understands exactly what miracle to perform for your pleasure. You WILL NOT be happy with just any little proof... Before long, you running things.
Then we'll be calling YOU on the main line. Lol
You know those papers in college... the ones where you don't really know anything about the subject you are writing about? You believe that you are so clever that you can spin a bunch of crap together and you will sound insightful and wise.
Everyone remembers at least one paper like that. The one that you actually convinced yourself that you did a good job. That you sounded like you knew what you were talking about. You were sure that you actually DID manage to pull something intelligent out of thin air... just because you are that good.
When you get that big fat F back, after turning in pages of beautifully worded writing, you are actually offended... for a second. Then you realize that ignorance is obvious, no matter how you try to dress it up. You realize that people who are more intelligent than you are well aware of just how little you know.
This whole thread is like that paper.
Thank you Melissa for admitting that. I'm sure you've helped someone.
I have ALWAYS had God. My "stinky" papers came back with A's. He ALWAYS amazed me with my grades. I always knew MORE than I thought I did. It was always a humbling experience. Thanks again... those are GREAT memories for me.
Agreed. This paper would actually get an F minus....and the student placed on Academic Probation.
I don't think I will ever forget my Critical Thinking class exam. Everyone was nervous. The test was hard!!! When they were passed back, 36/100 was my score. Once the prof. explained the curve, I aced the exam!!! Only one to answer the last questions correctly. I got the highest score. I didn't pat myself. I deserved no credit. I thanked God.
I confess that I would look a little askance at a critical thinking course that taught it's students to exclaim that a 36% test score was "Acing the test" and to thank God that they had done that well. It wasn't being taught in the local seminary, was it?
It might explain some things, though...
Pop quiz, critical thinking. And I need to explain how EVERYONE scored way below failing? Have you ever taken a critical thinking course?
Again, sounds like siminary thinking. Wishful thinking spinning truth into lie.
Scores of anyone else does not magically make a 36% score into 100% (the commonly accepted meaning of "Aced"). It makes it sound better, feelings are good rather than bad, but the truth is still 36%.
Oh! You did not understand. It was bot the test miserably failed it was the experience of watching the sh*t morph into sugar right before my eyes. It was sweet. It was one of the profs ways of challenging the class. He explained his purpose and announced me as the sole answerer of the final question.
That is a terrible score, a complete fail. It clearly shows you're critical thinking skills are abysmal and your posts here confirm that.
I don't really neee to explain myself on that point. It was what it was. See it how you want.
You don't need to explain anything, the score speaks for itself. It is a fail.
Dont you mean an A? That was the grade top of the class; highest grade received; MOST "critical"; not by my power.
So you got the highest grade in the class with a 36/100...Good thing for the other students as well...since no-one probably failed...
What would have happened if someone in the class scored...say 96/100...
Where would have your 36/100 fallen out than?
I would not have bragged about this myself...As in appearance, it would seem that you were the smartest (or luckiest) of a class full of persons with little to no Critical Thinking skills...
As you have not gone into details( or i just missed it), I am going to assume, this was a test given toward the beginning of the course and not the end of the course...and was designed to assess where the classes Critical Thinking skills were baselined at.
Some people are truly thankful for small ponds...
It's like being the only guppy in a tank full of brine shrimp.
It does not matter. The testimony was given to reflect upon how my worries about getting an F on crappy work were usually abated once I got my work returned. It was a lesson in how I expected little and received much more. Not "offended" that my paper was marked with a big red F, because the grade was much more often than not, more than I expected.
I have a question ( and I'm not trying to he funny it anythin just bear with me). I took a philosophy course in college where the answers to the questions were considered "common sense" but in reality there was more than one answer to the question. So the "lower" your score was the better because it showed that you were thinking outside the box. Was your critical thinking test like that?
Actually no. I think it was more like a pop quiz that was expected to be far above undergraduate thinking. It was an assessment. And note-takers would have gotten the "famed" answer. Just so happens that during my cram, that note jumped out at me and I remembered. I know that some want that to be called luck; but I've been living this life too long. I cannot even tell it all. Be talking til...
Why would they give tests for "above undergraduate" at a community college? I've never heard of a cc to give critical thinking classes either...
What is your degree again?
Wow. That was not just an insinuation. It was a univ. I know you were NOT in my class...
Yeah, but I'm nosy.
https://www.facebook.com/citycollegesch … 2525856860
That's a community college. The one you have listed on your facebook under education. I checked them out... No Critical Thinking classes... only ASDs offered.
I never expected to become so important to you. it was a univ. I didn't list it ('m still there) I know you understand. Now, if you want to dig it up, be my guest. Let's see how far you are willing to go to get to know me... oh!!! I did the Associates in comm coll.
It took you almost an hour to come up with THAT?
So you chose to not use the currently enrolled option on Facebook huh?
Like I said before, some things are obvious. It took me 2 minutes to find confirmation. But please, keep going. I need a laugh.
You got me... I DIDN'T use the currently enrolled thing on fb. Thanks for checking though. My "check-up" on you got me banned for 24 hrs. Remember???
I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's not all that unusual.
I did a quick check on your fictions because your story was obviously contrived and made no sense to anyone who actually did go to college.
More than enough oddities to raise a red flag. Many of your posts are like that. Just thought I'd call you on it.
People really do recognize your BS hon. Just so you know.
seems like one tough cookie!!! But it kinda seems a bit "green" to me. You will not find me to be a liar, no matter what you check, Hon.
Education is a gift to me; not a bragging right. Everyone is slinging around degree titles like they're going out of style. I need not...
You done "attacking me personally?"
Lmao, I always get a laugh outta that phrase! But don't worry, I can handle mine. I do not do the report button. It's like hitting your big sister and running like hell to mommy. Lol
Yep, defensiveness, a quickly contrived second fiction when the first one is exposed and finally trying to turn it back on the one who outed you.
The barely coherent string of seemingly random words is a new twist though.
No, a 36% score is an F, a fail.
You can see that any score below 60% is an F or E...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_ … ted_States
Hysterical laughter!!! I DO think you're jealous of my A. for you and the other lady it would have been an F. See how favor with God works?
Yes, but it would have been an F in college. I understand your confusion at the difference. As a matter of fact, the more you talk the more I understand your confusion about everything.
I'll try to use small words. Maybe that will help.
Melissa...I would wager that if You, I or a few others were in class with her...She would have gotten the "F" for her score...
Yes, when I have an imaginary test in an imaginary class in an imaginary university, I tend to get an imaginary A on it.
I know one thing...Truth or not...That is not the story I would tell in my attempt to prove that being on "Gods side" was the way to go...
Nor I. My blessings include my children, my husband, my home, my health, my intelligence and my sense of humour.
If the best I had to offer was a 37% on a test, I might consider switching faiths.
Why not? God's favor aced the test for her, with...uh... a 36% score. And got the only correct answer on the last question because God...uh...interfered with her free will and made her take notes. Yes.
It's good to be on God's side, especially when He can produce that kind of endorphin rush over a 36% test score.
Seems I read that she studied and just happened to remember the answer to that question...So I am thinking study (Even poor study) played the part and not God...
But if that is who she wishes to be grateful to for such a low score...So be it...Personal I would take the blame on that one and give credit to "God" for the good scores I received...
Maybe the fact that she studied for a pop quiz had something to do with it. She was thanking God for her psychic ability.
Or jogging her memory maybe? For the one and only question that was gotten right?
Didn't study for this quiz (pop). That is what helps to make it so wonderful. I remembered it from previous cram. I crammed often. Never really sat to study much. Education is a gift to me.
No need to convince us any further, I for one certainly accept that fact.
But, it was returned because it didn't work?
Even the best fiction writers have problems with plot flaws. It's hard to keep a consistent story line when you're making it up as you go.
If only you stick to your story, it may be true huh? Get over it; I am not a liar and I do not have to fabricate. You want me to be your intellectual peer and not a grade or two above? Done... no more talk of my education.
All the education in the world wouldn't help you in that regards. Sorry. That isn't a gift you were given.
In addition, it's quite obvious when you say that you were in a college class that doesn't exist that it's fiction. When you say that you were in an undergraduate class at a school that doesn't offer any degree higher than an associates... that is also a fiction.
You say you studied for a pop quiz... but then you didn't... but then you did.
You say that 36 is an A... when it is clearly not.
There is also the matter of a professor that singled you out of an entire class for your 36 as a mark of your intelligence. I've never been in a college course where the teacher singles a student out for anything OR shares the grades in anything but a printout.
You are trying to make up a reality based on what you THINK a thing (college) is like. It's obvious you've never been there. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with an ASD. You just shouldn't make things up to impress people. Sorry.
You probably shouldn't thank God for a fiction either. I don't think he'd be happy about that.
If you would bandage your wounds you would realize that there is no way you can say with certainty that I am being untruthful. You lie when you imply that you may. Looking up material on FB does not make you sleuth of the century. Now, if you do it like us college kids, you would dig a little deeper before speaking so assured when you have NOT done your homework. Now pick yourself up off the floor and put some stank on your search. You will possibly not find out about my test, but you will find truth to my story. You then would have to face some facts about me. no, we are not close to the same intellectually. And you would probably not be laughing anymore either...
Ah, looky there... you ran that through spell-check. Getting better! Gold star for you!
I'm completely sure you are a Harvard Grad... you just listed a community college on your facebook to chase off all those executive recruiters.
Do yourself a favor, talk to one of them. Maybe he can define big words like "cram" for you. Or were you too busy learning how to put words that no one ever said in quotation marks and end sentences with several punctuation marks at Harvard to worry about vocabulary development?
Once again, transparent.
Sorry. I do feel sorry for you though. I like my real life more than fiction. I feel bad for people who can't say the same.
Someone's taken off the gloves... ' rotflmao!!! You mad??? It's ok... You did ok here. you lied on me; but I understand... you need to believe in your superior gift of sarcastic gab. That is reality... I would make up something quick.
Be Wonder Woman, she had gold jewelry and a great waist!!!
Get help. Seriously.
I'm done with you. If anyone else chooses to interact with a fictional character, let them have at it. Continue on with your fantasy, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Im not fictional Melissa. I'm Genaea. You know the one... c ya later.
Oh! Got all the help I need... Thanks for coming.
Humble yourself. No one can hurt you if you do. You will not be destroyed. Just humble yourself for God's sake.
Now here is where I gray over. You said, with feeling, "humble yourself"
In what way did I display that I am anything but? Please tell me. I need to know.
Let it go... You think about Jesus on the cross, he was reviled and spit upon, he didn't defend himself... We all get into that trap at times, we try and defend our cause, our meaning, our name. The only thing worth defending is the name of Jesus. We're all the same, you and I, you and Melissa... when it elevates to this level, just walk away. We all get caught up in it, Ive done it too, but in the end, what was it all for?
Cram isn't study?
Note jumped at you and you remembered...That sounds like study, or at least reviewing the material...
Or was Cram a typo and you meant to write exam?
To study a lot of information in a short period of time...example: studying 3 chapters of material 5 minutes before an exam.
That's it!!! The note jumped out (meaning like a sore thumb) during my PREVIOUS yes, cram, and it so happened that it stuck. I remembered that one piece of seemingly unimportant info.
I had NO idea that I would still be talking about this... I guess it takes time to comb over a person.
I know!!! Isn't that funny? I can kinda read your mind. You would NEVER "debase" yourself for some God, right??? gotcha...
By the way, I usually got much more than I expected from my work. That was my point. "Shining" for the thread means nothing. That WAS an ACTUAL story, (possibly the most extreme) and I am glad it amazes you to the point of disbelief. More "proof" that my God is amazing! And a great lesson on how he can take nothing and make something. Scoff if you will. I am a child of the King of kings and no good thing will ue withhold.
My God is an awesome God he reigns from heavn... sing along!!!
Actually, I would never have given credit to God for my failure...even if it did result in getting an "A" instead of an "F" for a poor score...
Wow! How does someone like this actually function in society?
Then this amazing failure of a God should be able to feed the poor starving children of the world, or save children from being raped by His own priests, instead of putting the answers to test questions in your head. Just where are His priorities? What a silly God.
If God is such an awesome God, He sure didn't seem to appreciate being sung about as an awesome God. Here is what happened to the singer of that song. I don't think I'm gonna be singing this one. Yep what an awesome God you serve:
God is awesome. It is unfortunate you can't see that.
Christians who are praising this silly worthless God as awesome, even after evidence, like this, that prove otherwise.....now that is what is unfortunate. Mindless!
Drivel is worthless speaking. Have you not listened to/read your own posts??? It's like the same "colorful" paragraph repeatedly. Is there anything in you that feels somewhat drivelly???
Question: Do you remember how Jesus died??? Weren't you there?
Now hopefully you can see that you have created a circular argument....because it is my responses to the same psychotic drivel, that has been regurgitated over and over again by Christians, that makes it appear that I'm repeating myself, but in reality, it is you. I'm just repeating the response to keep your feet to the fire.
Yeah, and I also remember how Darth Vader died. I hate to break it to you, but when fictitious characters die, it's in the script.
You can't compare that to real people dying. Doing so is ruthlessly callous....indeed.
You don't believe Jesus lived either? With all the available "facts"???
I made you speak drivel...? Lol! That's ok, I make my five year old pee on herself every day too. (...darn special powers again; sorry)
Rich Mullins was another amazing precious soul. He lived on a reservation with his friends and family (the native Americans). He had no wife, though they were standing in line, and no children. He was open and honest and a truly amazing musician. The bible says the death of His saints is precious to Him. God brought Rich home because it was His good and perfect will. Rich himself would have told you there is no place else he would have rather been.
Really? Did you know him, personally?
Is that why He kills them in such bizarre and horrific ways as He took Mr. Mullins? Mr. Mullins was ejected from his vehicle, then run over by a truck.
What a painful, unimaginably terrifying death. Precious? Did you even bother to think about this?
So let me get this straight: God's "good and perfect will" was to have Mr. Mullins ejected from his vehicle, then run over by another vehicle, dying in an extremely terrifying, brutal way...even after Mr. Mullins sang a song glorifying the awesomeness of this God. Good? Perfect? Could this be any more absurd???
Really? Did you know him, personally?
Kool-Aid. Drink. Don't think....just drink.
I met him, but we didn't exchange emails, no. We did buy one of our cars from his drummer. lol. I followed his ministry very closely. He has tons and tons of songs and live performances online where he speaks his heart very clearly. He was open and honest about sin and needing Jesus. I went to a showing of a movie made of his life with a bunch of Christian musicians, it was extremely touching. This is one of my favorite Rich stories they shared on that movie: "When Rich's nephew was born with a birth defect, his sister was devastated and wondered what she had done wrong. Rich called her and said "I'm so proud of you. I'm proud that you are my sister." "Why?" she asked. He said, "Don't you know that God only gives kids with special needs to special people that He knows can give them special love?"
He was super poor growing up. My uncle is a pastor and Rich and his family of 7 attended his church growing up. My aunt said they were so poor they'd come to church with no shoes. Even though he could have been wealthy after his music career took off, he gave his money to his church and different ministries and asked them to filter him just enough to live on the reservation. He was a truly gifted musician, he played many instruments beautifully. He was funny and godly and Im not surprised God wanted to bring him home. He may have died upon impact, maybe very little pain... but it really doesn't matter. We all will die. Some quickly, some slowly. Stop hissing at God and learn who He really is instead of this ridiculous persona you've attributed to Him. You're time is coming too.
"13 Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” 14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil. 17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them." James 4
This is my favorite Rich song: but I have many.
He was thrown from his vehicle when it flipped and then run over by a tractor trailer trying to swerve from hitting the flipped vehicle. He died in agony later in hospital. Your God's work?
Stop praising God and learn who He really is instead of this ridiculous persona you've attributed to Him. See how that works?
So either God is real and He allowed the accident to happen just as death all over the world happens to billions of ppl, or God is not real and you're just blah, blahing for nothing. Which is it?
Don't you mean that if God is not real, you are just blah, blahing for nothing?
If God allowed such a gruesome accident to happen to one his faves, wouldn't that show how horrible he is? God could have easily prevented the accident and took Rich in his sleep, peacefully, without the horror and agony of such a tragic accident.
No. It was a bad ending; by definition, then, Satan did it. Satan found out God wanted him and was going to take him so quickly arranged for the accident to make that "taking" as nasty as possible.
Yes, and He could make clouds for us to walk on... or maybe fly so our feet don't have to touch the ground... maybe the food would be never ending and we'd never shed a tear b/c we were with Him... or did He already prepare a place like that for those who love Him?
This is earth. The whole thing is a giant ball of sin and consequences. The Bible explains it all.
Yes, God could do all those things, no problem, he is all powerful, right? Yet, God only appears to do the things that YOU and other Christians claim He does, at your convenience. Your hypocrisy overflows in that regard.
Sorry, but the Bible does not explain anything about the earth or even reality.
God does not do what pleases Christians... He does what pleases Him. HE IS GOD. If we love and know Him and follow His will, then what He does is then pleasing to us. You have it backwards.
God does not do what pleases Christians... He does what pleases Him. HE IS GOD. If we love and know Him and follow His will, then what He does is then pleasing to us. You have it backwards.
Yes, it pleases God to lower your adoption payments and watch as tens of thousands of children die of starvation. God does what pleases Him, indeed.
Is it pleasing for the starving to starve to death? Was it pleasing for Rich to die horribly?
Seriously Beth, your arguments are getting absolutely silly.
Cause Im not arguing. Im explaining, but you are incapable at this point of your life of understanding. If you humbled your heart, you might be able to learn something, but I don't think you will... I wont push my beliefs on you, but if you question my God I will do my best to explain Him to you.
No, I'm trying to understand based on logic and reason, but you are incapable of offering any.
Hearts pump blood, brains think, that is how you learn things.
But, you are failing miserably to explain anything and offering only fallacious and irrational answers that appear only to align with your personal wants and needs, ignoring everything and everybody else.
Beth, I think the point attempting to be made here, is that if God is real then why did he take one of his own is such a horrific way vice peacefully passing...
This doesn't match up with the concept of a Loving God in the eyes of the non-believer...And to be honest, I can't see how that would match up in anyone's eyes for that matter.
I understand the point. The fact is they don't understand God. Rich died b/c he was hit by a truck. God could have lifted the truck up in the air and over Rich's head, but God allowed it. It was time for Rich to come home. Those of us who know God, trust Him... however I die, is how I die. I just want to be in God's will. The other side lasts for eternity... it is the priority... we are only here for maybe 80 years and then it's over. This life is the surreal one, eternity is the priority. We must be ready.
Or, more precisely, you make claims about what God does that align perfectly with your personal wants and needs.
Yes, God could have lifted the truck over his head and allowed Rich to die peacefully in His sleep. But instead, He allowed Rich to die horribly in agony and terror. Yet, God makes sure your payments for adoption get lowered. Funny, how God works.
Do you remember how Jesus died, just before the sky went dark?
Still can't fathom "happy"ness???
The fairy tales of the Bible can be read by all.
I understand your point of it was his time...But why did it have to happen the way it did...Dying that way was God's plan...What purpose did it serve?
Everyone is so concerned about the "next life" that they don't even bother living in this one...Isn't it what goes on in this life that determines the "next one"...There is a lot of selfish people in this world...working so hard for themselves so that their "next life" can be in "heaven"...Self isn't important...
If Heaven is real, then why are so many Christians completely afraid of dying? I would think they would have nothing to fear from death and in fact should look forward to it...But this is not the case...And that fear comes from the unknown of what comes after death...So even those who claim to have a firm belief are afriad they are wrong...Because if heaven was real and people truly believed that, they would not fear the unknown of death.
And I know, alot of people claim they don't fear death...but that isn't true in most cases...all it takes is a certain threat of death to be placed in front of them and they will be begging and pleading for their life.
Proof...Why do Christian pray to God for protection from Life-threatening situations...Or why do Christian pray to have God heal a terminally ill person? Maybe because they are selfish and don't want to lose the other person and don't want them to die and go to Heaven to be pain and sick free...living the "good life"? Or because they don't know what happens next..??
Man, such good and lucid comments... very impressed.
"Everyone is so concerned about the "next life" that they don't even bother living in this one...Isn't it what goes on in this life that determines the "next one"...There is a lot of selfish people in this world...working so hard for themselves so that their "next life" can be in "heaven"...Self isn't important..."
That was so well said. I agree completely... not that Im much different than the majority... I don't want to die in certain ways, it's true. I have even asked not to die in certain ways, but here's the thing... however it happens, it will last for a moment... a drop in the bucket. Christ suffered for me, and he was innocent... completely. He'd done nothing to deserve being whipped, hung, stabbed, spit upon, impaled with nails... he did it only to pay the price for my disgusting sin (and yours). So whatever way God deems acceptable, for what ever reason... Im ok with it. Will it be easy? Will it be hard? Will it be miserable? I don't know... but it doesn't matter. I need to live the days I do have as a loving sacrifice for him and when he says my time is up, I will go. End of story. But thank you for your post... it set my mind on what matters.
I have another question...
If Christ died and took on the payment of all of our sins...Then why is man still paying for sins?
Jesus took on the Sins of the whole world...So if he paid that price..Why is Man still paying as well?
Jesus opened the door for the whole world. Not many choose to walk through that only door. He paid the price for those who trust him. The "world" however. ..
He paid the price for all Sin...The bible is clear in this...
Do you know for whom the bible and all its promises were written?
God, of course. He wrote it for His purposes, to benefit Him.
It may or may not be an accurate description of what He is, it may or may not be a guideline for what humanity should be, but it was written for Him. If, of course, He exists and had a hand in it's construction at all.
The bible was written for the children of God. It confuses all others. God knows the difference. Jesus showed us how to know quite a bit, mostly for safety reasons.
Platitudes notwithstanding, we are all children of God, or so I'm told. The Christian, the atheist, the Muslim and the Buddhist. All children of God.
But that isn't the point. If God did not care about humanity He would not have written the book. He does care, He did write it, and He wrote it for His purposes. Whether that is to save humanity from itself or to produce better God-dog food we shall see when we die. Just as what Jesus showed us is for His purposes, whether good for us or not.
So his awesome God put Rich in this type of miserable poverty? How awesomely cruel!
If his money went to helping the poor, that is very admirable. But he was still mistaken about his view that God is an awesome God.....a God that made him poor, then ultimately took his life in an extremely terrifying, horrific way.
I'm surprised that you mindlessly overlook how this man was killed, and just regurgitate some pie in the sky, whimsical, feel good drivel.
Really? He may NOT have died on impact, as well. If you think that it doesn't matter, then I guess maybe that's very bizarre. I would like for death to be as painless as possible. You know...like a merciful God would do?
God is not real, therefore, I couldn't possibly be hissing at Him. As far as the ancient character in the bible, well, I can only go by what I have read, and what I hear believers regurgitate. You can't have it both ways. Either your God is merciful or He isn't. And since He allows things like Rich's death, and Sandy Hook, and birth defects, He can't possibly be merciful.
I don't think it's arrogant to presume that I will be alive tomorrow. However, I do think it's psychotic to preface my plans for tomorrow with the phrase "If it's the Lords will. I have seen no divine Lords in reality.
No offense, but not my perception of talent.
lol... oh mr. crazy pants...
What we survive, what we experience, makes us who we are. Yes, he was poor, but as you hear in his songs, he found his simple upbringing to be beautiful. Something to cherish, you do not understand the ways of God.
God could have take his head off with a lightening bolt and ultimately, he would have been ok with it. God did not kill him with a truck... a truck driver did. God could have altered the circumstance, but He allowed it, and if you could ask Rich now, he would tell you he is not only at peace with it, he is grateful for it, because it brought him home.
I know you find it bizarre, b/c you are entrenched in your belief. As far as if God is not real... it that were true, what a colossal waste of time this conversation would be for you.
Really, God flipped Rich's vehicle over and then hit him with a tractor trailer to bring him home?
God didn't flip Rich's vehicle; he allowed it. But he probably was waiting right there on the road. I can see it clearly! It makes me happy!!!
What makes you happy?
It makes you happy to see God standing by the side of the road allowing a vehicle to flip over followed by a tractor trailer running over Rich? That's what makes you happy?
Can someone get me a pail to vomit in?
Ha!!! You have misinterpreted me again. it makes me happy to see the Father "come down" and stand on dirty pavement to embrace his own and carry him away.
...can't think of ANYTHING that makes you happy...
So was the accident of God's doing? Or did the accident just happen and God came down to take his chosen home?
Doesn't God decide when, where and how one is going to die?
Or is he just there to pick up the pieces when death just happens by its own process?
It is written: His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways.
He is infinite.
Too bad we couldn't just shut the thread down after that post, cause it says it all.
You didn't answer the question...at least not directly...
However, what you did do, indirectly...was say that God caused one of his own to die a horrible death just because that is how he felt like doing it...
Interpretation is really off! Even for one who speaks DIRECTLY to you, hmmmm...
The Lord allowed it. Why??? Who knows? God don't even think like we do. Do you remember how Jesus died?
Umm...Ruling please....Was I off in my interpretation of what was posted??
That is what I said... God allowed it...He allowed one of his own to die a horrible death...for no other purpose than it was how he wanted to do it...How does this paint a picture of a Loving God?
If you determined how your children were to die...When would you have them die? How would you have them die?
Wouldn't you want them to have a full and happy life and continue to be a light unto others? And wouldn't you wish for them to pass painlessly from this life to the next?
And since you bring up how Jesus Died...It would appear that God prefers his own to suffer horrible, painful and drawn-out deaths....Kinda sounds just like that Sacrifices of Old Testament times...
Does God still requires human sacrifices?? It seems to appear so...
That is what I said... God allowed it...He allowed one of his own to die a horrible death...for no other purpose than it was how he wanted to do it.
However, what you did do, indirectly...was say that God caused one of his own to die a horrible death just because that is how he felt like doing it...
Which one of us is confused???
You didn't answer my question directly...
And then you agreed with my follow-up...
Which was what I had been saying all along...
I'm willing to bet it's you...
You make it my fault that you changed and forgot??? I must have those psychic abilities after all.
I am following the conversation. You are listening for "your scripted line" when you get the truth, you miss it. And it makes you change statements quickly. Hey!!! I was accused of that! I guess some really do project.
Umm.. I haven't changed anything... Please show where I have changed something...during the course of our discussion...
...missed it again huh??? I think your eyes close when you read my comments.
One word made the difference.
I'll Go back...
Your first post I posted on:
So I ask once again... where did I change anything...??
You might be confusing me with another poster??
You didn't answer the question...at least not directly...
This was your admission that the question WAS answered, just not according to the script.
"My words actually" were the "change"
You twisted my words and made it appear that I had said something I did not
I did nothing of the sort...
I said what you did directly....and what happened indirectly because of what you did...
And yes you are correct... The question was answered... Just you didn't do the answering...It was the lack of what was said that answered the question...
So again I say... YOU didn't answer the question...even if it was answered albeit indirectly through your lack of providing an actual answer...
Hahaha the plot thickens.
You don't want to understand me, do you? I understand you. (Not this comment though)
Actually I do try to understand you. I must admit that most of your posts don't make much sense in context to what is being asked or talked about...So it takes some interpreting to figure out what you are attempting to get across.
I am not being mean or rude here. I am speaking to her communication skills. For the most part, her comments or replies do not answer questions nor are they directed to comments made.
I was accused of not "Understanding" so I answered as to why...And it is because her comments don't fit into the context of the conversation being held.
And we all know you're no good at interpretation. I can go a bit slower if you need. I realize these concepts are impossible for you to fathom. But you are not alone. Many many many will not get it. thanks for trying though...
I have been nice...
You are not a Christian...
You are not Christlike in any manner...
As you say God will judge you one day. And I fear He will find you seriously wanting...
You might wish to actually take a class or two on the bible and learn to understand it correctly. Because if the bible is what tells you how to lead the life that will assist you in making it to heaven... then one might wish to make sure they are getting it correct...
I will no longer be talking with you after this post, as you have nothing of value to add to any discussion I may wish to be a part of. Have a blessed and good day.
If you would have known me 10 years ago, you would have said I was a model Christian.
If you would have known me 3 years ago, you would have said I was lost... and I felt lost.
If you knew me now (we can't really know each other thru this medium) you might say I am finding my way back to God.
Only God can judge a heart and the journey. He is in control.
Matthew 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
If one doesn't act Christ like...They don't...And if they don't act like a Christian should... they are not Christian... regardless of the claim...
If this is not true, then anyone who claims to be Christian is one...Including those who Kill,rape, steal and all the other "Sins"
Christians judge who is and who isn't Christian every day....And Just as the bible states...By their fruits you will know them...
Im sorry, I thought Ive seen her bullied on just about every thread she posted on. I must have been mistaken.
Christian or not... Mature Christian or not... ppl have feelings... they get defensive. You do, I do... When you are condescending and unkind does someone come along and say "You are not a true Atheist!"? lol What standard are you held to or is there none for you? Just saying... I don't know, seems like more bullying to me.
I have never bullied her...I have attempted to discuss with her...
I treat everyone the same way.
I am not Atheist...
It seemed to me you were condescending to her when I said "kind".... funny thing is Mystic Moonlight came along and accused her of the very same thing... so in my estimation, you are maybe the same? Humans with feelings?
So you said something to the effect of "You Christians judge .... " So if you are not Atheist nor Christian, are you Agnostic? I don't really know what's left. lol
I did not say "You Christians"
I Said "Christians Judge"
Beth, I pointed out that condescending is condescending no matter who is doing it and if you say she wasn't being condescending then I don't know how you missed it. But then again as I stated, I suspected if a Christian was the one being condescending towards others it would be condoned and excused and your defense of only her condescending tone is proof of that.
I think she was being condescending, however I felt it was due to feeling picked on. I think some of us, depending on who we were raised by, all sorts of conditions etc... react to certain treatment a certain way. That being said, maybe she has been picked on a lot in her life, so I view her with glasses of mercy. It doesn't mean Im right about any of that... just an impression. I wish I could give you both a face, but it's hard to differentiate between all the avatars, "Were you the Atheist with the cat pic. or the Christian with the flower pic?" Plus some ppl post more than others so it's easier to get an idea of what they're about. I think they were both in the wrong, but that's not meant judgmentally, I literally say things I shouldn't every day. Some days I walk away thinking I represented Christ as I should have, other days I walk away hanging my head. But I maintain the same thing everyday... we're all the same and I believe whole-heartedly we all need Jesus.
Beth, no one is being picked on. This is a public discussion forum, people can't be bullied or picked on or oppressed or persecuted or anything of the sort, that is utterly ridiculous. We are simply reading and writing and nothing more. If someone doesn't want to respond to a post, they don't have to do so, they can move on. Do you understand?
We are "wrestling" and we will until one or the other gives in. Both sides are eternal. So neither will. We will "wrestle" (and then our children) until the end of time. No problem. It is what it is...
Condescending: show that one feels superior; be patronizing.
Notice that condescending and bullying are two completely different things, Beth.
Thank you for always using my name. It makes me feel special.
If one person is condescending, that would make that person kind of a jerk... if several ppl are condescending to one person... that would be bullying.
It disturbs me that I have to use spell check every time I write "condescending". Oooh, I got it right that time. Good on me.
Was that you who I just spoke to about discernment???
You need not have to explain yourself. They're just using classic misdirection tactics so they don't have to answer questions honestly.
Yes, you were mistaken. Her beliefs have been questioned and criticized, she has not been bullied.
Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively to impose domination over others. No one here is being bullied, Beth, by definition.
Beth, by definition... what?
Anywho... I know the definition... maybe you don't recognize it when you see it.
Is this like a jedi mind trick? Because you say it, I must believe it? Do you wave your hand in front of the screen when you say it?
No Beth, I use a dictionary when I need to understand the definition of words. You yourself have placed definitions here, but now you refuse to understand the defined word to suit your agenda. Sad really.
I just ADORE your style. it is NOT condescending... gotta find that name... (and NOT sarcasm; I lol just about every time) it shows that the spirit DOES cover all bases.
I often wonder what Jesus meant when he said, "greater things you will do" (I mean, what the heck could be better than calling a dead man's name outside his grave and watching him "come forth")
Could that "greater" mean boldly and competently standing for God in a world (www) full of hecklers??? With a smile.
Can you help me reason out "greater things"?
Oh!!! Humility is very important. I do not put MY name into the mix. My "college story" the other day was about the Grace of God in my life. No lie. No me. I was not "hurt" by the assertion that I was a liar. I was surprised that my truth was misunderstood; then spotlighted genaea. But then I realized, that is the enemy's tactic. We "wrestle" not against flesh and blood. Yes, I did go a bit far with my defense, but, it was in the name of purifying my praise. I am still amazed at the ways God has dealt in my life. My education (still going) is a gift to me. God is the giver.
Im pretty sure it's sarcasm... lol... but to be fair, I make the same jokes with all the ppl I love so it's more about the joke than the sting.
However, I see your desire to share the truth with the posters here, at any cost and that is a good thing I spose. But who am I to commend you? Just an encouragement. We are all maturing... I look back at comments I made on ppl's hubs as little as 7 mos ago and cringe... I knew God would save me from the dark place I was in, but it didn't happen over night. Ive got so far to go.
Really? At any cost, Beth? You consider that a good thing? Funny, how you whine and complain about being bullied, yet you have no problem if others shove their irrational beliefs down our throats "at any cost". Stunning hypocrisy.
I meant any cost to herself... but once again, I appreciate the good-natured ribbing.
Absolutely no sarcasm. I said that... you think I'm a liar too??? Lol, really. Only the spirit of God may discern the spirit of God. Jesus lets us know that it is what comes out of you that defile. What comes out is truth. However harsh or funny it may sound and TRUTH, my Dear, is what we're after. Who are you to commend? Spirit.
Saved you from a dark place??? Girl, ME TOO!!! He who is forgiven much, loves much also. Jesus said that!!! Lol with a tear.
You are covered. The word of God hides you, the spirit of God protects. You cringe because boldness is not your own. I sometimes go, "I wrote that???" The words are NOT MY OWN. Check my words by spirit. He gives in that same hour what to say...
Now, count how many scriptures that are ccontained in this ONE post. The words are not my own Beth... (I used your name! I know ya like that!)Rotfl... we ARE kin...
It was sweet... you said a heart full... what could I have added that wouldn't have taken away?
Thanks for this post. I won't push. I really am ok with whatever. I just wanted to ensure you know my intent. I have no ill against you whatsoever. We belong to the same family. Your "check" is my "mate". I prefer that if spiritual flaw is detected; they "that are spiritual restore..." then we may show them how spiritual reasons take place.
Hilaroius, nothing spiritual has ever been shown to exist, yet you're here to detect "spiritual flaw" and show us "spiritual reasons".
That's like saying we can detect flaws in unicorns and must restore them with leprechaun reasons.
Yes, but ONLY spirit may judge spirit. Only spirit recognizes spirit.
You got the spirit?
Careful with the scripture quoting, one might mistake/misinterpret your motivation. The bible was written for the children of God.
Thanks. You be blessed as well. If you change your mind...
Condescending. If no one else will say it, I will. Statements made in a tone like this is the exact same thing some accuse ATM of doing. Just to be fair. Condescending is condescending no matter who you are. But I'm just going to bet that the condescending tone in this remark to DS will be condoned and excused but if ATM or any other non-Christian is condescending it will not. I've seen it so many times and had to speak about it.
I believe the term to be applied would be Hypocrite...
It's so thick sometimes I nearly choke on it. Good grief. Fair is fair. Don't cry foul when it happens to you if you sling mud too! Is that a golden rule? It should be!
I don't purposely sling mud...I did not mean what I said to her in a mean manner... I was pointing to how she was communicating as to the context of the discussion...It wasn't an attack or jab at her...It was in defense of her saying I didn't understand something... So I explained why I didn't understand her comments...
So I don't think I did anything rude..? Maybe a few other takes on it may clear it up...Beth thought I was rude (not nice)...
I didn't mean it to be that way though...And if that is how it was taken I apologize...
And if she said the same, would you accept her apology, b/c you said you were closing all doors. There are certain ppl we cannot communicate with, no matter how hard we try. I *totally* get that. I have wanted to talk with someone on these threads, but it always turns out bad. But you can't judge someone's eternity just b/c they lashed out the same way you did.
We all need to take a time out on this forum. haha... Some times I think we've lost it.
That is just the point... I did not lash out...Lets look at what was written again...
Hahaha the plot thickens.
You don't want to understand me, do you? I understand you. (Not this comment though)
Actually I do try to understand you. I must admit that most of your posts don't make much sense in context to what is being asked or talked about...So it takes some interpreting to figure out what you are attempting to get across.
I am talking about the communication aspect...Not her..I didn't say she don't make sense...I said her comments don't make sense as to the context of the discussion
Im not sure how you translate this, but to me it sounds an awful lot like:
"I must admit that most of your posts don't make much sense in context to what is being asked or talked about" = "What you say is unintelligible. It lacks relevance... you lack relevance."
"So it takes some interpreting to figure out what you are attempting to get across." = "I, the superior communicator have been willing to use my superior skills to muddle thru your jabberings, but now I'm thru."
But maybe I am off and in fact you meant what you said nicely... what do I know... it's all just perception.
Ok.. let me clarify...
"I attempt to understand you" (in response to you don't try to understand me)
"Your comments don't make sense to the context of conversation" (What you are saying don't match the conversation at hand..."discussion of apples...she talks about oranges") Not that it is unintelligible...
"Figuring out what she means" (Attempting to apply how oranges fit into the conversation about apples) Not that I am superior in any way.
That was beautiful, but is it possible you assume something is an orange b/c *you did not recognize its meaning? My point is... maybe it's not her. Anyhoo... I need to get out of y'alls way.
That may be possible. That I misunderstood something.
But if that is the case...I am not the only one...
And typically, If I don't understand something or misunderstand it...I ask for clarification...And this is where the problem normally lies with my discussions with her...
Ex: When I ask for an explanation (Clarification) on the "orange" the answer comes in the form of a "banana"...So now I am attempting to understand how the "orange" relates to the "apple" conversation and how the "banana" clears up that misunderstanding...
She reminds me of another Hubber...Brother something or other...
Very hard to have a discussion with as the context of the discussion changed from post to post...
I don't have that problem with anyone else...
It's a matter of being open to what occurs. You ask loaded questions. Then you wait for the trap to catch. I load my response. Then you become confounded??? You were waiting to say x. I made it impossible and it became confusing. I know... it always works that way.
If I ask what color is an Apple...I just want to know the color...And one would expect red, green, yellow something to that effect...What I get as an answer is that an orange is a fruit that requires the outside to be removed in order to eat it...
What you are doing is called evading and eluding...This is a common tactic of those who do not possess a strong knowledge of the topic at hand.
It does not make me confounded as to the topic being discussed. It is confounding in itself as to how one would think the answer given even remotely pertains to the conversation at hand.
You do not have to explain yourself. It is how you wanted to come across and I am fine with that. We are adults I think and we are discussing God. People just do not agree there. Some don't even agree with themselves on all matters. All things lawful are not expedient always. (Scripture) when you understand spirit, you better understand the why, what, when, where, and how better.
Listen, someone puts my head on the chopping block daily. I'm ok though. I cannot take it personally; this battle is the Lord's. He did not send paper feelings to this thread. God taught me to be strong in faith and things that people say are just that, sayings. I may say too. Do you not feel that people mistook Jesus for condescending? Those priests probably had to unfoot their mouths on a daily basis. Truth is harsh to one who "prefers" the lie. The bible is condescending. It discerns the heart's intention. God is not displeased with my actions on this thread.
True humility says, "*Is God pleased with my actions on this thread?" If you've done that before coming to that decision... then ok.
Either way, I care about your feelings and if you're doing ok, then I will butt out. It's the mama bear in me... I can't stand to see someone bullied. But you sound like you've got this... so Im out.
Yes, I'm fine. Thanks. I have an advocate; not just any old advocate I search myself many times per day. I do miss the mark sometimes but I am very mindful to do unto others as I would have them do unto me.
No, I don't think that you were being rude at all, DS. My 'sling mud' comment was directed generally not to you specifically, sorry 'bout that!
No worries, Cgenaea. I see ATM and some others getting accused of doing that exact same thing so often. I wasn't trying to "pick" on you, just pointing out that it is what it is no matter who types it.
And, that made you ecstatically happy to believe that.
Where is that pail? I need to vomit.
Very, very true.
The next question, should you desire truth and knowledge, is whether He is benign or not? Did He lie when writing the bible? Does He have motives not beneficial to man or individuals? Does His actions match His words?
Tough questions for a believer, and questions very few are willing to take on. Are you?
And when those (and similar questions) have been answered, how do you know? What evidence was used to make the conclusion?
Must feel better than all those F papers huh...
A real F beats an imaginary F any day.
Really, if you are going to construct an alternative reality, you could at least try to be successful in it. If the very best result you can construct for yourself is a 36... you might want to discuss your self-esteem issues with an imaginary therapist.
I'm an atheist going back to college and getting another degree. So far, I have a 100% in my very real class and a 3.9 gpa. I attribute it to hard work, study and dedication. If God only gets someone a failing grade and people who don't believe in him get perfect scores, I'm good where I am.
No need. My 36 is amazing to you. As it was to me. No problem, I don't "need" you to believe me. That is not important. My point is: I usually got much more than I expected. Let's stay there. Forget my A.
Personally, I have never received an "F" in any class or assignment...Of course, I tend to study and actually learn material presented in class...
But you have demonstrated that you cannot distinguish your name from another. ...comes and goes???
Um... actually yes I can...
I was just adding my 2-cents actually...Even though you wasn't talking directly to me...
Ooooo you used wrongful English! She gon git'chuuuuuu.
Thanks for the two cents but it seemed more like bragging to me... you interjected your "marvelous" academic record. You think the conversation is better now that we know? Sure ya do... go on and SHINE.
Now THAT was luck!!! Thanks for not signing up.
The more I use correct grammar? I know, it's rough for you to understand. Maybe you should try an English course at Imaginary U.
No, I am not jealous of your fail, quite the contrary. Words could not describe how embarrassed I would be to get such a dismal mark. 36% can only be described as epic failure.
No, that is an F in what we call "reality"
Yes, it is easy to see where favor with God leads to ... epic failure.
I believe this depends on where a person is in the world and what they are being taught. Some people have over used that name but that doesnt mean that the name does not exzist. Every person has an experience that is diffrent from anothers so when a person reads the words in the bible it will have a diffrent story vs saying that there is one story. Religions are seperated but they all believe in something it doesnt MATTER what you name it.
yall might wanna bring it back to the topic... I know it's like sticking my hand in a shark tank, but it seems like ppl are just gonna keep getting hurt...
I agree. I don't want to be known as one who hurts people.
Ah yes, the threatening bible. Let's go...
I'm done with her, if anyone else wants to buy her crap, it's their waste of time.
How is man paying?
There are consequences for sin i.e. a guy robs a bank and says, "Hey this sin has been paid for, Im not going to jail." and the judge says, "You wanna bet?"
Our sin is ultimately against God. We cannot enter Heaven b/c He cannot fellowship with darkness, so a "covering" of our sin had to be provided... and that is why Christ came.
However, the judge is not interested in God's court... he's looking at his own and a price must be paid for those iniquities.
Sorry, but the courts don't recognize or acknowledge sin, they recognize criminal and civil law.
One fairy tale emerging from another.
Ok...so before we go further...
Lets clear up some things...
What is Sin?
Is it a transgression against God?
Or is it breaking the law of the land?
Or is it both?
The bible clearing states that Christ paid the price for all sin...So that would mean all sin is free and cleared...But of course the "land" will still punish you for breaking the law...
Since Man still dies....Which is the punishment for sin (Transgression against God)... And Jesus died to pay for all sin (transgressions against God) of man... Men should no longer die...if the ask and are forgiven of their sins (Which should have been forgiven with the death of Jesus) and Believe...
So Man is still paying for sin(Against God)...in spite of the death of Jesus..
There was no death in God's original plan, but b/c of Adam and Eve's sin, God took away that gift. Revocation of privilege, done. Nothing can be done to change this.
Next, sin means to miss the mark. If a pilot sets off on a transatlantic journey and sets his navigational equipment, but is off by one degree, he will miss his destination by a shocking amount. We cannot pay for our sin... no man is capable. So the blood of Jesus, offered to all, is a covering of that sin. We cannot enter Heaven filthy with sin... God wont allow it. We must allow Him to cleanse us.
Lastly, this world is not Heaven. I've said it a hundred times here. It has its own laws, its own judges, its own rules... this is why abortion is legal... we are under a different rule here on earth. So as we break man's laws, we must pay man's price. Man calls them consequence for actions, God said "You reap what you sow." Either way, paying man's price has nothing to do with God. They will release you from prison when you've served your time, renewed heart or not. With God... not so much. It is *all* about the heart to Him. He is looking for repentance of sin, and a humbling of will to Him.
I would argue your definition of sin...But I'll let you check up on that one...And yes the punishment for sin (disobeying God in Adam's case) was death...Prior to Jesus, animal sacrifice was the price to pay for this sin to allow for admittance to heaven. With the death of Jesus...he paid the ultimate price for all sin. Jesus was born to take away the sin of the world..
Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
1Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, ...but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
If sin was taken away...Or paid for...then way is the price of death still being paid?
With what you said...Sin was not taken away...Therefore it was not paid for...
Jesus was simply a sacrifice that covered the sin to allow admittance into heaven...The same as the Animal Sacrifices of the Old Testament...
God still requires a Death Sacrifice for the payment of sin...Which is the reason Mankind still dies...
The death of Jesus did nothing to remove this sin...no saving from sin...no forgiveness of sin...it only covers it for admittance into heaven after the human dies as a sacrifice as well...
Uh... no... Im not sure how we missed each other there.
I said death entered the world as a consequence of original sin. Nothing will change concerning that... there is nothing we can do to revoke that. But that does not gain us entrance into Heaven.
Next, Jesus came to be the payment for our sins, exactly as you said... God required a sacrifice in the OT, Jesus came to be that sacrifice... He would be the ram in the thicket... it was this covering... that would allow us attendance with God.
And that is the point I was making. Jesus does not "save" one from sin (even though this is what the bible states)...He is simply a sacrifice that covers the sin...Just as are all humans that die...Death(Sacrifice) is still the payment for sin...
If we look at this from a logical point of view...The Death of Jesus is not of effect for anything...As the human still dies because of the original sin...And this death of Humans because of sin...is still in and of itself a sacrifice for sin...God still requires A sacrifice for payment of sin...
Only it is now a Human sacrifice only instead of an animal and fruits of the ground sacrifices that in the Old Testament allowed for humans to live for hundreds of years before the human portion was to be paid...
I gotta be honest... I was done reading at this point. Once you toss the Bible to the side, we might as well talk about crop dusting. When it comes to God, you can't make up your own stuff. Ppl have done that in the past and it ends up with a bunch of ppl dead on a floor with a bunch of empty Kool Aid cups around them. If you add to the Bible or take away from the bible, it's just your own made up... crap. (Not to be unkind, just in general... it's all crap.)
Please refer to my earlier post...The bible does state that Jesus "Saves" one from sin... All Sin... this includes the original sin...If this is the case...There should no longer be death...as death was the payment for sin...
If not...Then Jesus does not save from sin, but rather covers it...and death for the original sin is still required...therefore one is not saves for it...
You are correct...When it comes to God...One cannot make things up... yet it is done by believers every single day...and when one asks questions or points out a void that requires and answer.. the response is similar to what you have provided here...
This is the problem Atheist have with believer types... if as believers we can learn to speak to our beliefs and answer this line of questioning then maybe we can make them understand where the christian belief comes from...even though they would still not believe in it most likely...
As every Christian has a slightly different belief, it has to come from their own mind. Not from the bible, not from the real universe around them, from within themselves.
So no, belief is unlikely.
They will never convince anyone else until they can figure it out themselves...
Got to give them an "E" for effort though...
Yes, we know those fairy tales, Beth. Could you get back to reality, now?
Look at those brains goooo!!! The spirit of God makes one to see things similar to the way he sees.
Can I call you CG? I can never remember the spelling of the name you go by.
Spirit HAS been shown to exist. But it may as well be unicorns and leprechauns to you.
Sorry, but that is completely false and since many of your claims are based on it, they too are false.
You are right! For you, it is meaningless. Maybe not ALWAYS...
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
Do you actually think about all these fine platitudes/quotations or just run them through the Xerox machine in your bran and spit them back out indiscriminately?
The word of God is hidden in my heart. He brings it to rememberancewhen needed. I speak biblically. You may Google a phrase or two if you wish. Most of it is in there in some form or another.
I take it that means that no, you don't think about them? You don't try to fit them to the audience, you don't test them even mentally for correctness or truth - you just run them off the paper, and out the fingertips.
I've wondered about how that works.
How would I know if you erred? You never actually answered the question.
But you should know - do you think about the platitudes before posting them? Do "fit" them to your audience? Do you check them for accuracy (beyond "biblical, so true")? Do you think the listener will understand what you mean with them?
Sorry, but talking gibberish isn't evidence.
No, let's all take the time to follow beths point to its logical conclusion. Beth admits that cgenaea was being condescending in her post, but excuses it because according to Beth, she was being "ganged up on and bullied" by a significant number of people who disagreed with her. According to Beth, it's perfectly acceptable to behave in a condescending manner when you're outnumbered.
Christians far outnumber atheists in the United States. Therefore, Beth thinks it's perfectly acceptable for atheists to behave condescendingly to them, and I'm sure (given her own logic) she will now come to the defense of atheists and stop trying to call them out for being "condescending" based on her own perception.
Oh! And Christians do not outnumber atheists. Not all who claims Christian status belong.
Yes, and it's abundantly clear why you are not able to distinguish or avoid logical fallacies.
Incidentally, critical thinking classes (and debate classes) usually cover logical fallacies. Just sayin.
The "No true scottsman" logical fallacy is one out of many logical fallacies. There's a long list, and you like to use them a lot. The goal of an intellectually honest person is to avoid using fallacies and being honest. If you don't even know what a logical fallacy is generally, you should probably research all of them.
Now we have a problem. From whose viewpoint is the fallacy list made?
Logical fallacies are a list of commonly used tactics in debates, philosophy and logic. They are impartial and can be used by anyone and pointed out by anyone. They are simply a list of fallacious arguments and statements that should not be used by anyone attempting intellectually honest conversation. It's not from anyone's viewpoint, and every critical thinking or debate class I have ever attended or audited has covered them.
Why, thank you! I appreciate the clarity. (Back to bragging???) However, as you may now see, I based my claim (once again) on the bible. I didn't say what I said because I said it or dreamed it; I said what I said because the bible says it. My comments were in response to the fallacious claim that Christians outnumber Atheists.
Are we clear now?
No. No we're not clear.
Nothing in my post can possibly be construed as bragging, first of all.
Secondly, it's not the biblical claims that are the problem. It's your use of logical fallacies. There are ways to discuss biblical topics without the use of logical fallacies. I've had many debates with Christian Apologists who understand fallacious arguments and make their case without using them. This is very basic stuff that you don't seem able to understand.
Thirdly, you don't seem to understand what fallacious means, so you might want to look that up as well, since I did not commit a logical fallacy in my post.
Still not understanding? If you take the time to look up what Julie told you to you might save yourself some embarrassment.
I was posting to you. I don't understand a Scotsman fallacy.
If you don't understand what a logical fallacy is, I would recommend looking it up. Google the "no true scottsman" logical fallacy since you don't understand what it is, or how you just used it.
I didn't use it i was trying to get clarification, but thanks.
You did, actually. You said
"No, Christians don't outnumber atheists because a lot of people claiming to be Christians are not "true" Christians. "
That is an example of the no true scottsman fallacy.
People who are forced to resort to the use of easily recognizable logical fallacies are people who practice intellectual dishonesty who cannot make valid points without the use of fallacious claims.
Aha! But what if I was not familiar with the term? No true Scotsman fallacy sounds like NO true Christians or something. I will look it up. But the bible states that not many choose this path. The bible is true. Therefore there cannot be as many yeas as nays.
Ignorance of a term does not make you immune from committing a logical fallacy or using a fallacious argument.
That's like saying "well I didn't know that pre martial sex was considered a sin, so I'm not guilty of sinning"
God does not hold you responsible for what you don't know. Though the bible does say that his words are written in our hearts.
My ignorance of the thingy makes me innocent
But my argument is not fallacious. It is God-breathed; I mean biblical.
Wow. That's not biblical at all. Sin is sin (biblically speaking) whether you know it's sin or not, and children in consequent generations are punished for the sins of their fathers.
I would also like to point out that no one is ever found "innocent". It's guilty or not guilty, and that is not the same thing as innocent.
I agree that sin is sin whether you know it or not. You are not held responsible for what you don't know. As children are not held accountable biblically until a certain age. My line of thought was different from yours. But now that I'm on track, how could my very biblical statement that there are not as many Christians as Atheists be fallacious? Am I still off?
Yep. And you're just adding more logical fallacies on top of the first one.
According to the Bible which you claim is true, you ARE held responsible for sins you commit, even if you don't know that they are sins. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The punishment for sin is death. For the wages of sin is death.
You cannot walk into a court room and use ignorance of the law as justification for breaking it. If that were true of God's law, then original sin would not exist, and salvation would not be necessary.
Surely, you the biblical scholar can see what I mean biblically. But now, you are holding ME to a different standard. Philosophy is somewhat unbridled. My thinking stops and starts biblically in this conversation. THAT I know... I HATED that critical thinking course. That professional was good! But I DID get an A in that course. So I knew enough about the subject for a professor who would give a test that NOBODY officially passes, to give me an A. Now THAT is verifiable with BLACK AND WHITE EVIDENCE. my point. The Lord has not given you a "dummy". You know this very well. However, I am still waiting for an explanation of your logical falosee crap.
I was trying to explain things to her earlier as well...It just doesn't work...She has things set and nothing is going to change that...I doubt that even if God himself told her she was wrong that she would believe it...She would argue a point that didn't even remotely cover what she was being told she was in error about.
Oh and she continued to tell me that I didn't understand what was being talked about either...
Quick, someone hand God a list of logical fallacies.
How do you KNOW that?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Your ignorance only makes you ignorant.
We can count the number of Christians. All followers of Christ raise a hand. Those are your Christians.
Since the bible is fali... oh forget it. Since you think the bible is untrue I am at a loss for my argument at the gate. But have you checked the OP lately? The bible backs me up. The few who are left (tee-hee) back you. So now, which of us are folli... untrue?
If I may, the way the No True Scotsman applies in debates between two Christians is whenever one Christian accuses another of not being a "real" Christian because there are two different beliefs of the meaning of something that is written in the bible(especially when both believe they are using the Holy Spirit)
Ok, so we are swimming upstream. Who started it??? thanks. There was not another Christian in the bunch. See how well we outsmart ourselves?
I was giving an example of how it can be used.
Well can you please help me understand why I'm so funny right now. I feel my face turning red. And you KNOW...
There isn't anything I find funny with this. I was giving you an illustration of what the others were speaking of. Fallacious does not mean false. What it means is that a specific argument used may not apply in all situations. For instance, the bible does say that not all who cry lord lord will make it into heaven. That does not mean that they aren't Christians. That means that they may have acted as according to what the Bible is saying from what they know when in reality they had it wrong. That does not mean that they weren't Christian. The bible says that there are some who will not enter in despite being Christian.
Another way of looking at it is when you see a person's actions that do not line up with what you feel is Christian ( I'm speaking hypothetically here.) To say that they aren't Christians based on your beliefs does not mean that they aren't Christian at all.
Ok. You know I HEAR you on that. But it is the mistaken belief that I stated that there were more Christians. However I stated that there were fewer based on what the bible says. And then I added that if there were more Christians then the bible would be the rule that MOST go by. It clearly is not. This is an example of how confusion will "win" the argument if nothing else can.
I get what you're saying, but you kind of slid into the same trap again. You saying that most are not following is an example of the fallacy. People are following the bible as the spirit has revealed to them. That the spirit revealed something different to them than it revealed to you dies not make your revelation the only one. Personal relationships with God are based on individual contact between a Christian and Christ.
But the bible is what I reported. The bible itself says that few choose his path. It does not matter what the strawman said. Few people choose, means few people.
I see your point now that you added the words few choose the path. That changes the tone unless you are saying you know who chose the path.
They been f-ing with me a long time over this stuff. crazy. I feel the weight lifted though. I'm sure you helped. Thanks again. (Fn effers...)
I guess they made every effort to encourage your critical thinking.
That's not a bad thing. Atheist are not your enemy. We are not under the influence of Satan. If you have that mindset, then you think that you are doing the Lord's work, against Satan(us)...instead of having a debate with decent human beings(the REAL us). Communication becomes useless...hopeless...MADNESS!
I've only been watching....witnessing this display...it's downright frightening...deeply frightening!
You are funny to me. It's like you jump in every now and then to say, "MAAAAD!!! You're mad I tell you!!!" I get the feeling you say that under your breath. (Lol) there is so much I could learn from you. I know that drivel is a word you use often; and I know you feel that my faith is, "imaginary, worthless, spineless, mindless, driveling, insanity" but you have never shared your experience with it. I think you softly spoke in a round-about way briefly once or twice. But why such a fierce stance?
Opps, you've made a statement based on your opinion. You are assuming the bible is true and expect other to make the same assumption. The bible also says girls who rare found to not be virgins on their wedding night should be killed. Do you think that's a true statement?
Well, let me show you critical thinking. You asserted that there were more Christians than not. In that case, more people believe the bible is true. Yes? So WHO then is making fallacious statements?
Ahh, you think because more people believe it it must be true? That my dear is fallacious. Man you just keep walking into these. I suspect it's because you don't know what fallacious means.
Up until not long ago it was thought that the milky way was the only galaxy in the universe. Now, because everyone or most believed that was it so?
It was also thought not to long ago that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around our Earth. Now, did everyone believing that make it so?
Go look up fallacious please.
Please tell me that fallacious means false.
So you think that since YOU think it, it must be true? Is THAT filet... uh how'd you spelt that agin?
No, fallacious doesn't mean false.
In means based on a mistaken belief. So when you stated that because there are more Christians in the world than none Christians that you are correct about God, I showed you that that statement was fallacious (based on a mistaken belief). The mistaken belief was that when more people believe something they are right. And then I gave you some examples to illustrate that a majority is not always right.
But remember... MY assertion was that there are "fewer" Christians... We borrowed there being more Christians than Atheists from YOUR initial assertion. That's when you called me a faleptual liar. Uh... who's confused?
Right, and if can stop making assertions based on your mistaken beliefs 1(not all Christians are real Christians) 2(the majority is always right) you will stop having egg on your face.
Not all Christians are real Christians biblically. I don't remember your initial point now. But you initially stated that there were more Christians. When I biblically refuted that, you swung the conversation to this mess but hey. Whether you agree or not; I believe the bible is true. All else has to work from there.All else is secondary. I believe that message first. Judging me by some other philosophical standard is absurd. We talking bible.
And not all Americans are real Americans. Not all men are real men. Not all horse are real horse. Not all grass is real grass.
We are also talking about your ability to have a conversation.
No I didn't, I'm attempting to show you that claiming not all Christians are Christians is fallacy. Notice how silly it sounds when I say Not all Americans are real Americans? Or not all grass is real grass?
No. If fallacy is based on mistaken belief. And my biblical assertion that there are fewer Christians ... you calling the bible false again?
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
The bible may say that not all Christians will get into heaven, but does it say that a person claiming to be Christian is not a real Christian? Are you able to understand what the definition of Christian is? A Christian is anyone professing Christianity or its teachings. So, if someone calls themselves a Christian they're a Christian, they may not get into heaven (none do as none exists) but they are a Christian none the less.
And so what if I call the bible false. Would you like me to point out some of it's contradictions. I also claim that the Book or Mormon and the Quran are not the word of any god, but I bet you share that sentiment.
The Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to eliminate all examples that might threaten an argument by removing the source of the example instead of arguing the merits of the example.
It shows an almost delusional strict adherence to an idea that one is simply too unintelligent to defend legitimately. Instead they just ignore the fact that there is an example that undermines their argument.
It's actually a great big admission of defeat and acknowledgement of the lack of merit of their argument to use it.
When used in the "No true Christian" context, it shows indoctrination without knowledge.
Willfully using the No True Scotsman fallacy is pretty much an admission of defeat. Especially if one is admittedly ignorant of the fallacy and unwilling to actually determine what it means. Ignorance of a fallacy does not negate the fact that it is a fallacy - any more than being ignorant of a law means that a law hasn't been broken if you break it.
actually, she surprisingly (with her exclusive attitudes) believes that allah and yahweh are both the same god.
So when you say there are more Christians because more people claim that status; you are ok. But when I agree that there are more Christians so the bible should then be the standard belief; I am on shaky ground. But then ... oh shoot!!! Let's start again... Four score and seven years ago... lol
Good one! Genaea is not a philosophy major. but you know what I DO know.
Appeal to popularity fallacy, and you still don't know the meaning of fallacious
Of course she knows... she took a class in critical thinking... remember?
Apparently she took the only critical thinking class that did not cover (or even define) logical fallacies or the meaning of fallacious. Her professor should be fired.
That's horrible to wish on him. After all, he has an imaginary car payment, an imaginary mortgage and four imaginary children to feed.
Or, "I know you are, but..." lol
Please stop with the comedy and explain.
I have explained. You just don't think looking up definitions to things that you don't understand is worthwhile, and you don't listen to explanations.
Btw, the "I know you are but what am I" only works if I have called you a name, which I haven't, and went out of style in grade school.
So, you do not understand it either??? I mean, you LOVE to ILLUSTRATE your knowledgeable expertise. Let's hear those thirty years of biblical study that pushed you far above its knowledge. I'm waiting on bended seas.
Oh I see. Because I told you to look it up and not waste my time spelling it out for you even though others have given you links and you have access to google, you assume that I don't know either? If I don't know what a logical fallacy is, or what the no true scotsman fallacy is specifically, how could I identify it and point it out.
Congrats, you have just committed two new logical fallacies: an ad hominem and a straw man.
Also. .. What the hell is a bended sea?
I rarely waste my time with links. I think the conversation should be equipped with at least one interpreter who can explain the conversation at hand. Uh. What's wrong? You cannot show me the joke to me too? I wanna laugh
So. .. what? You want someone to explain it to you slowly, taking the time to spell it all out for you just do you can turn around, just repeat that you're right, mock them for their efforts and keep making the same mistakes? I have never seen you admit to even a small mistake, regardless of how it's pointed out to you, regardless of who does it. A logical fallacy is a simple, easily understood concept for anyone. You just don't feel like making the effort to educate yourself on the concept to improve your communication skills and understand what other people are saying to you. That kind of stubbornness and dismissive attitude are common, unfortunately.
I understand the fallacy. I just don't understand how it pertains to me. Spell/don't spell. I don't do/say anything here that I KNOW to be wrong. If I'm wrong; correct me. But this time you have nothing.
If you understand the fallacy, why don't you explain what a "no true scotsman" fallacy is, paraphrased - and how your claim "not all Christians are true Christians" is NOT an example of the no true fallacy then.
The same can be applied to anything. I don't like the methods of the Westboro baptist church, for example - but I can't turn around and say "well they're not 'true' christians or true americans" or I would be guilty of committing the fallacy.
I have never once seen you admit that you were wrong about something - or even simply mistaken. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong about something, and I've done it more time than I can count. That's a mark of emotional maturity - to be able to recognize mistakes and instead of getting defensive, owning up to the mistake and learning from it so that it isn't repeated. I just don't think that you're able to do it. You just seem to dig in your heels and stubbornly repeat yourself until people realize that conversation is pointless.
Sure, the Bible says that not all that call themselves christians are really, truly saved. But that is not your determination to make. If we're going to define Christians as those that claim to follow Christ, no single person can decide that they're not "real" christians because no human being can see into someone elses heart. So you can repeat yourself to the cows come home and claim that you're "right" and everyone that disagrees with you is "wrong", but that's just an opinion that you back with cherry-picked scripture - and the people that disagree with you that call themselves Christians have scripture that back them up as well. It's nothing more than your interpretation and belief of what the bible says - and there's no reason at all for anyone - let alone an atheist - to assume that your interpretation is correct when you cannot back it up with anything but one fallacious argument after another and little actual substance or evidence.
Because "I" din say all Christians are not real. The bible did. I agree, but not my words. It was in response to the idea that there are more Christians. Then we turned so, so clever.
and you completely avoided the question, as usual.
the bible does NOT say that they're not Christians. It says that although they profess to be Christians, they are not saved, or have not followed the mandates of scripture. That doesn't mean that they're not Christians - it means that they were not saved. there's a very big difference here that you're either willfully or accidentally missing.
If the bible says what I am saying then it does not matter WHAT fallacy you come up with. I'm going with scripture. F your fallacy.
Well I guess an Atheist is of the belief that the bible is fallacious. But it is the SUBJECT of this conversation. Seems as if THAT would then repel atheists; but no You handicapped me with the big red x over the subject matter. Is that "legal"?
nope. Still don't understand the meaning of the word, do you? If you don't like links, try a dictionary or a thesaurus. It's really not difficult - especially since you've repeatedly said you're more intelligent and well-educated than the rest of us.
what are you even talking about?
If you are unable to even present your position without resorting to one fallacy after another, it demonstrates weakness of position. You can say it's strong all you want, but the bible says "by their fruits you shall know them" and I don't see any kind of fruit from you.
Not only are you incredibly stubborn, but you're displaying incredible arrogance in your repeated fallacious claims. I really just can't take you seriously. I think to you this is all one big joke.
oh...btw...you're using another logical fallacy - the appeal to authority. Sort of. In a backwards way.
Are you really saying that your interpretation of Scripture is equal to scripture itself? You're putting yourself on par with god? Wow... just wow....If the best you can come up with is logical fallacies and equating yourself with the god you claim to believe in, you're in for one hell of a surprise. There is nothing intelligible or even intelligent about communicating with you.
You know better than that I'm sure. The bible does not say that, "though should be well-versed in all them fallacies the world thinkers came up with, that thy days may be smart." The bible and the spirit of God, I know. Aint NO Scotsman ever hurt me... lol
I would try to do it but I've been told that my efforts are neither welcome nor appreciated.
This is now a philosophical debate. They "got" me. But wait til we wrap back around to the stuff I do know...
Not entirely. Fallacies in debates are not limited to philosophy. They can (and often times are)uses in religious debate as well
I understand. Confuse the situation, shut her God down. But only for a sec... Thank you for your help. You cleared it best for me. You knew how to chew it up for me, liquid-like . I hate the enemy's tactics.
With the two that you were conversing with, it wasn't so much about trying to confuse as it was an attempt to help you to avoid falling into some traps that will allow others to continuously shut down your points.
I didn't want you to get too far caught up in terms you are unfamiliar with without trying to clarify(as you requested)
Can someone so far removed from reality be reasoned with, someone who is incapable of being honest about anything and considers everyone else their enemies to the point of admitting hatred?
If we have folks here like Melissa, Mo and Deepes who also consider themselves Christians, but do not behave anything like Cgenaea, can we assume this type of behavior is well beyond following the teachings of Christ and is the result of indoctrinated Christianity? Or, is it something beyond even that?
If well beyond that, does anyone actually think they can get through to Cgenaea?
No, indoctrination sometimes teaches the you are either with us or against us mentality. So they only see evil in those who question them.
No. Very doubtful. There is only one thing that will get through and there are none of us that are capable of providing that.
I think it is beyond being the result of indoctrination. I think Christianity is just a symptom of something far more disturbing.
Absolutely not!!!!!! I believe the element of fear and the emotional need are beyond the point where anything can have an effect. Human nature is fascinating.
She can't teach an entire critical thinking class in one post. Especially not to one such as yourself.
Beware, the site is written in English. See if you can find a friend to help you on the big words.
Yes, falsehoods stick in my mind. I never trust people after they start making stuff up. Especially when they do a poor job at it.
Going to go talk to non-fictional people now... and play with my four year old autistic daughter who DOESN'T wet herself anymore.
Hello Melissa. Enjoy your evening. We must chat one day soon.