then at least do so honestly.
Don't make up convoluted defenses than make no sense, or that are outright untrue. That's called lying, and is forbidden by God, as well as unpleasant and immature. And if you're going to defend the Bible, don't cherry pick the "good" stuff. You do it, and you know what I mean.
Don't ignore the questions you can't or don't have answers for, either. That's a cop out.
If it's such a good book, prove it.
If God is so good, prove it. Use scripture if you want, which I actually prefer to personal interpretation. The Bible should speak for itself.
Can you do it? And if not, why would you want to defend something you are unsatisfied with?
I think it is far more stupid to criticize the bible.
It is what it is and no amount of diverging opinion is gong to change this.
The truth is, a man can only make it into that which he himself is, and no man is able to see beyond his own self. Therefore if a man sees foolishness, then to him foolishness belong and if a man sees wisdom then to him wisdom belong.
The bible, though a single volume, represent the works writings of wise men which covers many many generations and by that fact alone, the wise will give it the respect it duly requires.
A man might take the liberty to dismiss one book or a specific author, but to dismiss the entire collection of authors is downright stupid.
Then I will just have to wallow in my stupidity.
I will never believe the Bible.
Are you putting your own limitations onto everyone else? Because many people actually DO see beyond themselves. Including inside the bible, seeing the men deciding which books went into it as well as what they were to say. Seeing the ignorance of people from thousands of years ago, without those intervening years of learning and study. Seeing the mythology for exactly what it is.
And some men do not.
I love a challenge.
Your wish is my commandment ...
What'chu wanna know??? I have honest biblical answers.
I want to know, where in the Bible does it show God being kind and good, as opposed to being a tyrant.
Aw come on!!! Challenge???
Jesus (the one you love/deny) is our example of God. He was ALL good. Learn of him...
Jesus isn't God to me. Jesus is great. God's a tyrant. (I mean in the book.) How can you deny that?
Because I know; love; and do not deny Jesus. In the book he said, I am in the father and the father in me...
If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father.
If you have seen me, you have seen the father.
How can you deny that? Nevermind...I know.
Then I will have to take my chances. I won't cow down and say I believe something out of fear. I might some day believe, but only if I have a good reason to.
I understand. But it is apparent that "good reason" will not come. You cannot see/hear it... quandry is sufficient from my view.
If it's something you can't see or hear, then why even believe at all?
I do see/hear God. Sometimes. But I know now it's not real(at least some of it has been proven to me to be not real) so, I have to assume none of it is probably real.
I cannot argue with you there. If God has been proven to be fske to you, it seems you are not comfortable with that proof...I wonder why... but it is the business of you and God.
I'm not comfortable, because I still think there's something to religion.
It could merely be that I"M crazy, and that there still is a God. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
My illness just makes things much harder for me personally to decide what's going on, because I know for a fact I can't trust my senses all of the time. I can only trust my judgement. Thus I will only accept something now if it is a scientific fact.
A lot of people don't look at the bible as a history book when it is showing a particular groups history and their interaction and covenants and contracts with God. It is written like that. I have heard it put that it is often descriptive of what was happening (like a history book does, with the good and the bad) and not all prescriptive.
This misunderstanding often results in the crazy fights we see. People don't have to defend another groups history, or how they went against their God when they did, or others, etc. It is stories of what happened.
Some people get caught up in wrong things, and get very accusatory. Its all not necessary. I don't know of a single person that came to be a follower of Jesus because the story of Abraham and Isaac happened. It is a story or a set of them that leads up eventually to Jesus.
In the context, you can tell who is being spoken of and to whom.
I defend the Bible insofar as I would any other piece of written work. It is what it is. Being a religious text, it may have a lot more meaning to some than to others. It has numerous authors who bring their own personalities and feelings and possible agendas to the table. It is also an ancient text which has been studied and scrutinized for a long time. I believe myself to be a semi- religious person so I have a strong interest in it and I enjoy reading commentaries on it by people who are smarter than me.
You may need to look at the Bible as a historical text--one that needs to be read properly, if it is to be truly understood. It would take quite some time to explain all of this but suffice it to say that part of studying historical texts has to do with recognizing what constitutes a "criteria for authenticity." Another part has to do with realizing that the Bible was written in the Middle East, was set in 1st century Judea, not modern day America, which is obvious, yet people still fail to realize that we are dealing with the culture of that day...
Here are two links which will help you to look at this matter in a more "scholarly" manner. I'm not being elitist. I'm simply saying that it is the only way I have been able to understand the Bible. It is also important to know that the Bible contains the greatest wealth of information that exists for understanding the mind of God. I have also written about this, but will not include my link.
My only advice is to try not to fall into a mindset of solipsism-- a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing. In other words, if I can't see it, I don't believe it. That belief is too limited.
Sounds very reasonable, Janesix. But I was raised with scant religion so I don't get all the fuss over a book of stories to begin with. I'm a typical nonreligious person in that I would never ask someone to defend the Bible because I am confident and content in my knowledge that it is just a book of stories. And I don't have any interest in "un"converting people by pointing out flaws in their Bible-based logic. Only a small number of belligerent atheists are into that sort of thing
To be honest, I don't think people who believe in the Bible should have to defend it or even defend it logically, so long as their beliefs don't infringe on my rights. I'm perfectly happy coexisting with people who believe in something they can't really explain or justify.
I was kind of addressing a couple people here on the forums, without going so far as to use names.
If they're truly devout and not just trolling, then they're mentally incapable of doing what you ask. The answer to "If mankind started with only Adam and Eve, then why didn't humanity die off of inbreeding after a few generations?" is usually that God did some magical god stuff to make it work out ok. If they can always fall back on "God did some magical god stuff" then they usually will. But no harm in holding them to a higher standard.
I found a site where a bunch of random Christians offered their take on your question... there were a lot of answers. I'll send you the link if you're interested.
"One possible answer - closer to the beginning of creation, there's less junk DNA. A purer genome perhaps could withstand "inbreeding" much better than today. There are some biblical suggestions to this effect. Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings, but such arrangements are prohibited in the Mosaic law ~500 years later."
"the genetic code was not as liable at the same level it is today. Kind of like the immune system starts to fail the older you get. Plus, I am not sure how this works out but I have personally thought the genetic code was changed by God at the tower of Babel and that is where we get different colors of the human race. But that is only a theory. At that point I can see that different types of blood might have been introduced even. Even so at one point there was only two possible blood types with Adam and Eve. Now there are many different kinds and mixes. If Adam and Eves were different than they made a third and possibly a fourth and so on. But that also might have some relation to it."
"But let's remember, even the evolutionist must begin with two (cells or microbes or whatever) as well (or perhaps one, for asexual reproduction). Aren't adverse effects from a small gene pool a problem for the evolutionary model as well, in the 'early stages of life on earth'?"
Sorry, but wherever you got that from only shows a very bad understanding of dna.
Sorry, but theories are things that are based on fact, that is little more than a fairy tale.
Are you really sorry, or have you just found that the only way to start a sentence?
Yes, I'm very sorry for the dishonesty of folks who try to use science to support their irrational religious beliefs, I'm very sorry for the incredible ignorance of folks who refuse to learn things, I'm very sorry for the folks who attempt to invoke their irrational religious beliefs into society.
Yes, there is a great deal for which I'm sorry.
So, you're forgiving me for the actions of dishonest believers?
No, you said you were sorry, I said I forgive you.
Now go in peace.
If mankind started with only Adam and Eve?
You might do well to present another argument. We do know there were a genetic 'adam' and 'eve'. At this point, there is simply disagreement on where, and when, each existed. I've read articles in scientific journals supporting theories from them existing thousands of years apart and separated by thousands of miles, to theories that the two mated and their offspring resulted in us.
Better to scoff at the idea of a talking snake.
sounds like Mel...
However, Jesus said to tell it.
Those of us who follow him, believe what he said; and do it.
It's just not a major factor to be purposefully silent. That's a lukewarm action. It describes what is meant by dead faith. And/or the "lamp underneath a bushel." It could likely mean that one ALMOST believes. Especially when one spouts off ALL TYPES OF OTHER INFORMATION to show their supposed intelligence. But fails (purposefully) to tell the message of Christ. As if it's just not as important or neccessary.
The Bible says a woman can't preach to a man. What do you think of that one?
Jane, you have to read the bible as a whole. There are verses that say that a woman should not be in authority over a man as his spiritual leader, however... there are also stories that show God's true intention more completely. Pricialla and Aquilla were a couple that went around leading ppl to God and there were times when she led.
As far as God being good and kind, the list is endless.
He gave man life, he gave Adam a wife. He had mercy on man when they rebelled. He saved the children of Israel from slavery, He gave His beloved son Jesus to take the punishment for our sins... Jesus is the embodiment of God. He essentially gave Himself. The fact that you are here on this earth means He wants you... He loves you and the fact that you're seeking means He's reaching out for you.
"there are also stories that show God's true intention more completely"
No there aren't. There ARE verses, however, that people commonly twist and spin to produce "guidance" different from the words from God, given in the first set of verses where He says women are second class.
Yes, the list is endless. The children destroyed by bears. Lot and his tribulations. The children of Egypt, or neighboring countries that Israel was told to conquer and enslave. The infants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abrahams son, traumatized for life. All the children God made pay for the sins of their fathers and fathers' fathers. An entire planet full of people - people who never had a chance to know god but were drowned anyway and sent to Hell. An endless list of God's "mercy" and "love".
But aren't you cherry picking scripture here, which is exactly the opposite of what Jane asked you to do? You like the example of Priscilla because it gives you a sense of equality, and choose that over direct admonitions of Paul on the role of women in the church. He specifically says that he does not permit women to speak in church, and that they should go home and ask their husbands. You're just picking out the part that you like over the direct instructions. Additionally, many churches disagree with your assessment and interpretation even today, and do not allow women to have positions of authority and leadership. Your interpretation is your interpretation, and nothing more. It's no more valid than the opposing viewpoint.
No, Im doing the exact opposite and trying to include more scripture to give a fuller view of God's intention towards this matter.
By ignoring the parts (like Pauls direct instruction for church management, and his admonitions on the role of women) that you don't like? Choosing the example of Priscilla that you agree with over the multiple passages that you don't like as much? That isn't cherry picking?
I'm not about to go search for the scripture, I don't have time (by that, I mean I'm lazy:)
But my impression is that it isn't in contention by pretty much everyone that the Bible says a woman is supposed to obey her husband, and never preach to a man.
I've read it a few times, but not lately.
1 Corinthians 14:34 let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be submissive, as also says the law.
Also 1 Timothy 2:11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
This is usually SirDent's cue. but I will fetch it and lay it at your lazy feet.
And then, He cursed man forever with death.
And then, He cursed them both and sent them out of Eden.
He drowned the entire planet's inhabitants.
He lets tens of thousands of children starve to death every day.
Jesus was crucified for the crimes He was convicted by the Roman state.
Jesus was just a man.
He was betrayed.
The fact that we are on this earth is because we were born of parents.
No one is reaching out to us unless you can show that.
Notice how easy it is to refute your claims?
Good morning ATM!!!
I see YOU'RE bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, and ready to go!!! Glad you are here.
Your post was absolutely well planned. But it is amazing that you left out the fire... lol
Do you know any really good people??? Please tell me. I need to refute your refutation, but it will be MUCH easier if we talk about something you DO know all about for a change.
I'm ready too. But I guess you know that already...
Anybody worth your adoration???
Nothing you said was accurate. You do not understand scripture.
See how easy it was to refute your claims?
As easy as refuting yours, or Cgenaea's, mine or anyone else's.
A consequence of deciding that the bible means something other than what it says; something hidden and secret, requiring "interpretation" that is different person to person. If we do away with that quaint notion everybody would understand the bible the same, although it would have even less connection to reality than it does now.
Everything I said was accurate and you know it. Why would you say it wasn't? Oh yes, that would show you were cherry picking.
I understand scriptures far better than you, as do other atheists here.
You didn't refute anything, you just went into denial. Do you even understand the word 'refute'?
To me, it was a really specific rule for the churches of Paul. There are other biblical instances where women led.
The churches of Paul were different than the other early Christian churches?
Would you care to speculate on whether Paul was following the Word of God, as given to him via a God himself (Jesus) is right, or you are ("interpreting" scriptures written by church VIP's centuries later to fit what you want to think)?
Paul was following the words of God as given to him. And HE SAID CHURCHES. However, that point is tired. Women are here equipped with the sword. Yes, double-edged.
I can do ALL things through Christ who strengthens me.
I absolutely agree with your stance. Everyone else "interprets" scripture to their advantage - why shouldn't you do it as well? Especially as Christ is actually doing it all, just using your body as an extension of His will.
That is pretty fair, and I also truly believe in co existing with different people of different views.
I see the lovely Ms. JMcFarland has beat me to it.
You see the word churches???
Also 1 Timothy 2:11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Looks like I spoke too soon.....
I read this one to my boyfriend. He laughed when I mentioned the woman has to be quiet part. He thought that was hilarious.
Great scripture. Timothy said, "I do not permit..." he was probably on point for his time. However, a far cry from God.
I will admit that it looks quite nice for your side on this matter; but you probably need to go up a few lines to see what he said about Jesus. "one mediator between God and man." No surprise that God is far from view.
As for women being silent, I am taking MY chances lol
And I will do it with the blessing and favor of God the father and his son. he is more than the world against me... not much of a chance at all. We won...
lol..it's not my side. I don't care if a female preaches. I think they should, if it's their religion and they want to have a place in their church besides sitting around and letting/making the guys do everything.
I'm just trying to get you to see that YOU are being hypocritical:) You only follow what you want.
No, you won't do it with the blessing and favor of the unchanging God who laid down the law 2,000 years ago.
Instead you will claim you have the blessings, and that God has changed over the years. There is a little difference, you know.
God NEVER changes. His mercy is everlasting. If I am wrong for obeying HIS command to tell of his goodness; he has overlooked it.
He is so kind to me... and he will never hold it against me. I have gotten an understading in all my getting.
Thanks for all the concern though...
Oh!!! Learn quietly... could it be reasonable to say that Genaea has learned, therefore HAS green lights for yelling what she knows??? Gotta be... I was not given this knowledge for bush underbellies. it would be ludicrous and unfaithful to NOT share the message of Christ because I have no danglers. the spirit says yes... I am grateful.
To be unfaithful is to fail to follow his orders. That same failure could be considered ludicrous.
And His orders are for those without danglers to remain silent about Him, at least to those WITH danglers. I will let you draw the inescapable conclusion yourself.
When Jesus died, he did not leave YOU in charge. this business has grown much larger than your danglers. And YOU do not know him. You know not what you do. You cherry picked a scripture that seems to you to be in aggreance with you but you must not lean to your own understanding. If you acknowledge him, he will direct your path. Know that I will not be moved.
YOU are not in charge, either, any more than YOU know HIM. You have no idea what you do or say, cherry picking scripture to match whatever you goal is for the day. You must not lean to your own twisted understanding, but to the Word, without changing or spinning it into something He never said. If you do that, He will direct your path, through scripture.
Know that I will not be moved, maintaining forever that only the bible carries truth; not all the faux prophets twisting His word out of recognition.
Alright. yes the bible DOES contain the truth. Faux prophets will share in the lake of fire, so says the bible.
But we don't have to worry about that here. It's God's business.
So it is. God's business, that is.
Why then is such a fuss made about God talking to everyone around and telling them all a different story? You have one, I have one, everyone has one, and they are all different.
Probably best to just keep all our mouth's SHUT about Him, and let Him do the talking. That way there will be (at most) one liar, instead of 10 Billion of them.
I used to imagine you had some semblance of manners. You seem to have lost them completely. You have no right to speak the way you have been speaking to ppl simply b/c they believe differently than you. You have the choice to believe or not believe. You have the right to say you disagree, but this blatant rudeness is beneath you, at least I thought it was.
??? I made the exact same claims that everyone else is making "I know what God wants and this is it" - how does that make ME rude but not others?
As everyone is making different claims, all saying different things while claiming God told them that, either they are lying or God is saying different things to different people. Thus the suggestion that we ALL quit making claims - can you describe why that is rudeness?
If we have the choice to believe or not believe, then we have probably already made that choice.
Choices of a religious nature are tied directly to having the rights and freedoms to make those choices. If we live in a society in which there is no choice in what we are supposed to believe, then we have been stripped of those rights and freedoms.
If I don't have the right and freedom from religion, then my rights and freedoms have been stripped from me. I have no choice in the matter.
How is that fair?
The bible says tell it. The bible also says, how can they hear without a preacher? You cannot hear God without becoming familiar with his voice. (Unless he meets you on Damascus.)
You cannot become familiar with his voice if you do not want to.
I tell you everyday what he sounds like via biblical scripture. You may just get it one day.
Then tell it, truthfully as written, and without embellishment or changes.
People today can read - no need to hear with their ears. They also have to option to hear as the prophets do - God speaks directly to them.
If you do not want to, all the talk in the world will do nothiing but irritate the "listener" and drive them away. Is this too hard to understand for Christians?
No, you don't - you tell your twisted, spun version, scripture filtered through the desires of Cgenaea. Not truth, not the Word, and not biblical. But I doubt you will ever get it, either today or tomorrow - the ego is far too strong to hear the small voice of God over it's racket
Then you do believe.
You are right... for the most part, that is how He speaks. The written Word is not so veiled... maybe for those who do not have an open heart, but it's not so hard to understand.
What if CG does interpret the word differently than you? Is it not her right? I would say that at least she is single minded.
You are a man of somewhat mature years, no? Have tender words for all. The world is harsh enough.
No, it is not her right to twist God's words into something they never were and promote them as truth to the uninitiated and innocent out there. That is Satan's work.
But I notice you never did say just why repeating the words of others was rude for me but not them??
I'm not sure what qualifies you to say her interpretation is wrong.
I guess I put you a notch above a few of the others. I apologize.
The exact same thing that qualifies her to say it is right; ie her unsupported claim that it is so. And my unsupported claim that it is not. The two are equal in value.
Sorry, Beth, but I'm getting really tired of people spouting off that God has told them this or told them that. That they have all the answers because they are better than anyone else. That every opinion/answer that disagrees with what they have to say is wrong because God loves them and talks to them.
If they can spout nonsense and expect it to be taken at face value, and considered true and real, so can I. I can come up with just as many opinions as anyone else, and they are just as true as any other unsupported opinion that depends ONLY on the speakers claim to justify them or make them true. It's crap, and anyone that actually reads through this thread can see it.
Now if you want to discuss your beliefs, and why you hold them, I'm all over it. But if the "why" is "Because God told me so but told you (or anyone else) differently" then I'm not interested in a reasonable discussion as there cannot be one.
You think she thinks she's better than you, but it is your ego that convinces you that someone couldn't possibly know more about a subject they are intimate with than you do.
Hearing from God has nothing to do with a person being special. It has to do with the specialness of God. Throughout time He has spoken to the rich and the poor man, woman and child, the lost and the saved, animal and demon. He has used His voice, a burning bush, scripture and by simply making impressions on the hearts of those who would listen. I would never have thought to have adopted my daughter if I had not felt God impress it upon me. That doesn't make me special in any way... it means God wanted something done and He was not distant or weak in seeing the task completed. This is the God I serve. I do not believe you are a follower. This is not a slight in any way. I just believe you may not be privy to every aspect of communication with the Creator. There is nothing wrong or anti-biblical in saying the God still speaks to His creation today. If you would be interested, I would be happy to back that up with scripture, but you all often complain when scripture is cited.
Are you saying God is responsible for being heard and that it has nothing to do with the individual? If someone never heard God, does that mean it is because God has decided not to be heard?
That would be an odd thing to say considering most Christians say that it is the individual who was at fault, that they choose not to hear God.
But, many people have never heard God speak with His voice or have seen that burning bush or have had impressions on their hearts. Are you saying God decided not to speak to them?
Yes, it would mean you were special, considering if God did that for you but didn't do that for others. That makes you special because you are favored by God. God favored you over others, that's special. This kind of special could however, easily be considered resented by those who really, really, really want to be favored by God, too, but alas, they never get the opportunity.
However, if you decided that entirely on your own, then you would be special amongst other people in very positive ways, not because you were favored by God, but because you yourself decided to show what humans truly exhibit as their natural behavior, evolved over millions of years, that of compassion and altruism. This kind of special will tend to illicit tremendous respect, honor and accolades from everyone around you.
Exactly, they are not in God's favor, God has decided not to speak to them, they are not special and they might be resentful. This is not a good thing to be this kind of special, me thinks.
Aaawwww AT-yeM...there, there; God will favor you too... he's been waiting for you to knock. Faith knocks. The door will be opened; and he will pour you out a blessing you won't have room to receive. (Yes, I know I spliced two scriptures but it works)
But, isn't that the crux of point, that no one is qualified to say whose interpretation is wrong?
Is the Pope qualified?
Is your local minister, priest or rabbi qualified?
If something is written, we are forced to use our brains to understand it.
And yes, scriptures are not that hard to understand, the words are written there for all to see.
If any one person has the right to interpret something differently, then shouldn't we all have that right?
Should we also have the right to state that someone else interpretation is wrong? Would that not imply our own interpretation is right? Does this type of behavior not cause conflict? Are we not being hypocritical?
WILderness!!! bite your tongue off and email it to me. Lol!!!
Listen...if you take just 5 minutes to think about WHY you are SO enthralled by Christian peoples; you would probably realize how closely related you are.
You may as well say that you have decided to know Jesus if you gotta wrestle all year. you must have dramatically surpassed just a measly thigh bruising. You must got knots all upside... lol!!!
If you READ A WHOLE BIBLE you will see your discrepancies fade. Cherry picking is not sufficient. Remember my earlier example about how well ATM knows my spirit? At least well enough to know...
If you cherry-pick my "your imaginary sky daddy" comment you could convince...
We gotta know spirit to recognize spirit.
Exactly, and for the record, to clarify, at no time did I ever, hint, state or imply anything about knowing your spirit. The reason for that comes directly from your words, "We gotta know spirit to recognize spirit", and because no one has ever shown, described or provided evidence for "spirit", we can't actually know how to recognize it.
Well, well, well...
Seems like Paul did expect that women would be involved in the services afterall!!! From prayer to prophecy. 1Cor 11:5
But AGAIN...this aint Paul or Timothy's church.
Lol ecstatically. Jesus has done it again...
To God be the glory and honor.
You mean, the Bible is contradictory?
That's not news to me.
You cannot hear the "news" your ears are blocked. It takes a yes to hear. "I don't know", is not sufficient for receiving anything he has. And "I don't believe in Jesus"... worse than not sufficient.
What does that have to do with the Bible being contradictory?
Since you do not know my father. You will believe anything you want about him. One cannot give opinions based upon rumor or speculation. It leaves one in a vulnerable state of assumption. And we all know what happens when we assume...
From what you've said, I'm inspired to say, Faith (perfection of confidence) is far more important than understanding, but perfection of understanding can help faith blossom.
Too many take the Bible all literally and miss its meaning. Truth is spirit (2 Cor.3:6), not the letter (literal). For instance, I have discovered in my research how Noah's Flood was an act of love -- only this and nothing more. Someone who doesn't know the spirit of scripture will never understand this.
Rod Martin, Jr.
"The Bible's Hidden Wisdom: God's Reason for Noah's Flood"
I didn't say others weren't rude... I just thought you more civil.
These are your quotes. They are opinion, not fact, yet you actually have the nerve to tell ppl that they don't know the God they love and serve.
"No, you won't do it with the blessing and favor of the unchanging God who laid down the law 2,000 years ago.
Instead you will claim you have the blessings, and that God has changed over the years. There is a little difference, you know."
"YOU are not in charge, either, any more than YOU know HIM. You have no idea what you do or say, cherry picking scripture to match whatever you goal is for the day."
"Probably best to just keep all our mouth's SHUT about Him, and let Him do the talking. That way there will be (at most) one liar, instead of 10 Billion of them."
So you want God to do the speaking? Cause I thought you didn't believe in Him. So if we should not, in your opinion, be allowed to speak, and He is not real... what are you saying? You are trying to silence those with faith. It seems pretty clear you wish to stomp out the faith completely. Satan's been trying to do that since the fall and he hasn't been successful, what makes you think you will be?
I cannot understand why we all seem to fully understand that we Americans (of which you are one) came here to have religious freedom... many gave their lives for it... and yet on this forum, there are those who still say we are not only fools to believe as we do, but that we should be silent. We have even (and often) been called liars. This is the kind of thing I imagined you were above.
Perhaps, you're jumping to false conclusions. A request for believers to keep their faith to themselves is not the same thing nor leads to stomping out the faith completely, that is a false conclusion.
Believers are free and clear to embrace and practice their religious beliefs, as long as they do so behind closed doors. That shouldn't be a problem, should it?
But, religious freedom should also include freedom from religion, shouldn't it? We shouldn't have to hear evangelists telling us about your religion, we should have the freedom from hearing your religion equally to you having the freedom to embrace your religion. Fair is fair.
So this quote of yours is highly objectionable. Can you imagine if this reasoning was used towards homosexuals? "They can be gay all they want, long as they keep it in the closet where I don't have to look at it." Your reasoning not only goes against the Bill of Rights, but it sounds primitive.
Moving on, let me try to remember some of your more pertinent questions.
The Bible says that He will talk to His children.
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." Acts2:17
If that makes you feel not special remember this verse,
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners,
Christ died for us." Rm 5:8
This verse tells us that even in our sin, even when we deny God and speak disrespectful or hateful things about Him, that is the very time he shows us (all) his greatest love for us. So you are special to Him, He does love you and He loves you as much as He loves me, as much as He loves Mother Teresa, because He is great, not because we are deserving.
Yes, we all have the right to interpret scripture differently. We are however, called to study and meditate on scripture. If we have a lack of understanding, it may be due to the lack of effort on our parts.
You are talking about two different things and you know it. Gays DO NOT evangelize their gayness, they do not come knocking on your doors demanding you convert to being gay, they do not threaten anyone will eternal damnation if they remain heterosexual.
Please explain what the Bill of Rights has to do with this? Why is it primitive? Explain yourself, don't just make blanket statements.
Then, why do so many people not hear that talk even though they want to hear it because other believers make the claim that they do hear it? How do you explain that?
I am certainly not special because Christ allegedly died for me. The fact remains, that if any of that story is true, it is based entirely on the fact that Jesus was convicted and crucified by the Roman State.
What does that have to do with hearing God? What does being special in God's eyes have to do with being special in the eyes of others who claim they hear God?
You are not answering the questions.
Fair enough, you then fully admit your interpretation of the bible may be wrong, just like everyone else interpretation.
Bill of Rights=freedom of religion. I don't believe anywhere in the text does it say we have the freedom to practice our beliefs as long as it is behind closed doors.
I do not explain who does and does not hear from God. He is God. The creator of the universe. He speaks to whomever He wants to, whenever He wants to. Maybe He is speaking to you right now... maybe you choose not to hear His voice. I don't know. It's not my place to suppose. I will however, not pretend not to feel His leading or listen for His voice b/c it is a concept you don't understand. Gotta go to work. Have a good day.
True, but the Free Exercise Clause states that, "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."
The Separation of Church and State promotes and upholds the right to freedom FROM religion, which is everyone's right to not hear your religion in public. If you want us to respect your right to practice your religion, then you must respect our rights that you not bring your religion out in public.
Yet, God appears to speak to only certain people, automatically making them special to those who God chooses not to speak.
I am not choosing to not hear God, that is just a lame excuse and is not true in the least. If God is speaking to me, I certainly want to hear it. Please do not ever use that excuse in the future. Thanks.
I understand the concept perfectly, that is just another lame excuse. Please do not ever use that excuse in the future. Thanks.
And did you read what and who it was direct to? Here: a cut and past of what that reply was to:
"When Jesus died, he did not leave YOU in charge. smile this business has grown much larger than your danglers. And YOU do not know him. You know not what you do. You cherry picked a scripture that seems to you to be in aggreance with you but you must not lean to your own understanding. If you acknowledge him, he will direct your path. Know that I will not be moved"
See the similarities? Told I don't know Him, I return the favor. Told I don't know what I do, I returned the favor. Told I'm not in charge, I return the favor. Told I cherry pick scripture, I return the favor.
Basically a cut and paste, modified according to who is speaking, and ending with the suggestion that we both shut and keep our opinions to ourselves. Whereupon you butt in and declare I'm rude, she's not and I am at fault for repeating her nasty words. A Christian attitude for sure: "We Christians are always right, even when rude and nasty, and no one can use the same words without being rude".
I never saw what she wrote. I didn't read one word of what she wrote... not by choice, I just, for what ever reason happened to see your post and found it to be... what I said it was.
Are we not responsible for what we write?
So you took my words entirely out of context, blew them up into something they never were, and then made me out to be rude and obnoxious because of what you perceived the words meant and were about.
Thanks for the vote of confidence! I've done the same in the past - found words that seemed out of place for the author, but have always taken the time to understand the context in which they were written. It DOES tend to make a difference.
No, I haven't been able to respond to you for a few weeks now as Ive found your posts getting more and more offensive. I am basing my opinion mainly on your posts to me. I don't need to rehash it. I told you how I felt about the way you were communicating. I'm done. If you think you have been above board and have nothing to apologize for then there is nothing left to say. I shared my opinion.
Yes, me too. I'm tired of the faithful putting themselves on a pedestal because God has told them secrets that no one else knows. Lately there has been a huge rush (as I see it) of opinion stated as fact, because God has spoken to specific individuals.
And that is MY opinion, which I have shared. You have a nice day, but you might want to consider not jumping on the non-believers for using the same tactics (and words) the believers do. You will be happier, they will be happier.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Stephen Fry
You choose to be offended by something. And you unsurprisingly only choose to be offended by statements made by people not on your "side". The exact same words were said to wilderness from a Christian, but I don't see you stepping up and telling the Christian to be nicer. It's okay if a Christian says it to an unbeliever, apparently, but heaven forbid the unbeliever says it back. That's offensive. You know what that's called? Hypocrisy.
Did it. Didn't see you chastising any Christians. Funny, that. Perhaps that offends you, too
You probably missed it... doesn't really matter, at least not to me b/c I know who I am.
The only Christians I have ever seen you criticize are the ones that you don't think are true Christians anyway. You applaud the insults constantly thrown by your group and yourself and seem to find offense and insult in anything that someone who disagrees with you says. Honestly, I feel sorry for you.
You do realize that not everyone reads every post? It always amazes me when someone barks about someone else not chirping up when something is said to someone else. Is it anyone's responsibility to read every post and comment?
I'm only responding to this because I see where, further down in the thread you attacked beth for no better reason than that you could. Does it make you feel good about yourself to be so rude? You guys...both sides of the aisle...have a gang mentality. Why does it bother you to see the exact same behavior patterns you display?
I just won a ten dollar bet I made that you would show up. Thanks for that. Cheers.
Great. I'm sure you needed the money. Your hypocrisy probably drains your bank account to no end.
actually, my bank account is fine. Do you have a sixth sense that alerts you whenever beth is being criticized, or does she just message you for help?
Seriously though - I never said I was perfect. I'm sure I'm guilty of it too - but I criticize people I agree with too, and I have friends on both sides. That makes me an equal opportunity criticizer - and I don't just come down on people who disagree. If that makes me your target, I can live with that. In order to be offended by something or someone, you actually have to care about their opinions, and i'm sorry - I don't. Sorry to throw your philosophy about me out of whack.
I honestly can't recall the last time I told someone that I was offended by something. It's a worthless term that means I got butthurt by something by choice. What's the point, really?
Seems odd that one would choose to be hurt. But I guess it does happen one way or another. To be that concerned regarding the actions of another; then allow the REactionary possibility override one's own feelings is unfortunate; to say the least.
Fair enough. I consider myself an equal opportunity criticizer also. My opinions are what they are and I'm not shy about sharing them, nor does it bother me if no one agrees with them. They are, after all, just opinions.
However, you can't simply say that not using the term 'I'm offended' means your response doesn't fall into the category of showing your offense. If you are complaining about other people's behavior patterns you were obviously offended enough to feel compelled to comment. Maybe not personally offended. Maybe, just a self righteous assumption that you need to step in and comment in a negative manner.
I forgot to address your comment about Beth. No. She doesn't message me. I don't communicate with anyone from hub pages. I do click into a forum to read her posts because, usually, she seems to be circling the wagons to fend off comments such as the one from you which precipitated my post. I've never quite understood how her participation creates the level of animosity it does. Except, maybe, that she does have no problem responding in kind. I suppose that drives it, also.
[Heavily edited on the loving advice of Beth37. Thanks, Beth]
Janesix, a most potent question. And answers are available to those who are humble and hungry for answers.
Are you being completely honest when you ask this question and later say that you will never believe the Bible?
You have to be humble and hungry for answers to see beyond the literal and to see the Truth of scripture. Me? I have so much more to learn, but I've discovered things in the Bible that still give me goosebumps. Things like a biblical timeline compatible with those of mainstream science (not the garbage of "creation science"). From this timeline and its new Flood date, I've discovered through science the target of the Flood -- a species which went extinct at this Flood date -- a species described in Genesis 6 as the "daughters of men." I've discovered the real meaning of the seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs. The clue to this in Genesis 5:2 has remained out in the open for all to see for over 2,000 years, yet no one has seen it. And the Kabbalists helped to write Genesis, because their "Tree of Life" matrix is embedded in two chapters of Genesis -- hidden, but out in the open.
If, in all humility, Janesix, you change your mind, and at least consider the possibility that there might be something to learn, you might find the Truth that resides in the Bible. Everything that you disagree with in the Bible is likely something you're taking "literally" and thus missing the spirit of its message.
No one person knows all the Truth of the Bible, except perhaps someone very close to God -- the angels, Yeshua, Moishe, Elijah and the like. Not even I. That's why we all need to remain humble and hungry for answers. That's why our current interpretation must be held lightly, because to hold it firmly, we become unable to learn anything new, and unable to get closer to God's Truth.
Rod Martin, Jr.
"The Bible's Hidden Wisdom: God's Reason for Noah's Flood"
Jane may not be fully familiar with scripture, but I don't believe she is a hater. She has a lot on her plate and could probably use a more gentle tone as she searches for truth.
Nicely put, Beth. I let my own ego get the best of me (ouch!). Edited with more love. Thanks for your gentle encouragement.
I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that at any time in the history of Jane's residence here on these forums has she ever freely and willingly exhibited hateful behavior.
In fact, I don't see any real free and willing hateful behavior by anyone here, "free and willing" being the key descriptions and qualifiers. Anyone who did actually exhibit hateful behavior for whatever reason would be reported and most likely permanently banned.
Surely, you can't find a hint of hateful behavior from anyone here who is actually still here, can you?
Please provide citations for those timelines from mainstream science, the ones that are not the garbage you refer. thanks
I've always claimed there is some wisdom in the Bible.
Emile always seems to be not too far behind whenever Beth gets butthurt. It's cute. Nevermore the fact that Emily's behavior against me is exactly what she's complaining that I do. Double standards are funny that way. I have not attacked Beth. I pointed out her Hypocrisy. She doesn't seem to have a problem doing that too others, but she doesn't seem to like having the same done to her. It must be a case of the treat others like you don't want to be treated thing. Oh. Wait.
lol. JM, have you been drinking tonight? It's Emile, not Emily, surely you know that by now.
I did the very thing you are calling me a hypocrite for not doing. It's all so silly. We all have jobs, right? Where we go and we are to behave civilly and in a friendly manner? This kind of silliness and immaturity would not be tolerated in any other surrounding. Let's all bring it up a notch and just discuss things in a manner that wouldn't embarrass us in normal society.
I've seen a lot from you Beth. You're hardly the person to be pointing out tips for polite conversation when you throw backhanded insults and then feign ignorance for your own behavior. If you want to step things up a notch, start with yourself. It would be much more meaningful that way. It wouldn't be a case of do as I say, not as I do. You've told me on more than one occasion that everything I've ever said to you has been insulting and offensive. Maybe I'm just falling in line with your mandates after all.
Odd, that's what many of us have been saying to you these past 16 months.
Your obtuse inability to view your behavior patterns and how they mimic those you complain about is interesting. Saying you aren't offended doesn't really cut the mustard; when your entire complaint to her could only have been precipitated by you being offended. Your blind spot quadrant is quite a bit larger than you realize.
That's truly interesting; coming from you. Wasn't our last conversation a product of you judging others rather harshly? And I saying it wasn't any of our business? I wasn't aware that claiming I had no right to second guess other adults was a moral stand.
But, I appreciate the input. Your quick insertion of a comment proves that you are still miffed that I wouldn't agree that you had a right to negatively judge others on issues you are, admittedly, not informed about.
Maybe they are the same person, let's all obsess about that.
Sounds like fun. I have noticed Beth doesn't misspell Emile. Rather suspicious, when you think about it.
Very. We're all really at least six other people. The only reason no one has to see a psychiatrist is that we call them pseudonyms, not multiple personalities...lol
Really? You have a sock puppet? I'd never have guessed. Probably because I assume only those with an agenda feel compelled to create them.
The weirdest thing is that my name literally means praise Jesus. Strange.
Anonymity frees us from having to take FULL responsibility for our thoughts and/or actions.
Fly on the wall...
My Aunt used to tip-toe to the door of my bedroom to ensure she heard what I said about her. Just in case. LoL
Maybe she's sent her nosy avatar.
Paranoia...gotta love it.
by mintinfo 7 years ago
Why are people so convinced and dedicated to deceptions and lies?Is it because they are scared of reality? Is it because their education is based on deceptions and lies? Now that fool changed the date for the end of the world to October and people still believe him.
by janesix 6 years ago
That Jesus is Real?Please, only serious answers. I'd really like to know.
by r-o-y 6 years ago
God said the of today church is lukewarm and not hot or cold, and that this church is the worst in the history of the church. What is it about this church age would up-set God's stomach so bad?
by aramul123 10 years ago
hi ,I tried to find the answer of this question. even found an article about this but i am stil confused.
by maestrowhit 10 years ago
If you were God, and had the power to forgive or condemn whomever you chose, would you let people go to Hell? Would there be a single person you would not forgive?If your answer is yes, then who would that be? and why?
by Kiz 8 years ago
I haven't posted on the forums in this section with a serious topic in a long time, but I'd like to get some of your thoughts.Please keep commentary on this topic to a discussion of ideas, bash the idea all you like, but leave personal battles and insults at the door. Thanks!So:My husband and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|